Unexpectedly strong result for the Greens increases pressure on Sir Keir Starmer.
Surprisingly strong performance from Sinn Fein in the Red Wall.
Not as strong as the Cons in the inner cities.
CONS GAIN BOOTLE.
Fascinating to think it's not that long ago that Bootle was such a safe Tory seat that Thomas Sandys was frequently unopposed.
The funny thing is in some of these ultra ultra safe seats they might have been competitive not that long ago, but I bet most people in the seat don't remember or would believe it.
I see they also had an MP named Chichester de Windt Crookshank. I don't care what party someone is part of, I'd vote for an awesome name like that.
Wasn't that Tony Benn before he renounced his peerage?
@someone who would know - how would I go about submitting a thread header? Perhaps PM me? I sent one to an email address I had for Mike Smithson, but not sure if he's seen it/decided it's the worst thing he's read in a while...
@someone who would know - how would I go about submitting a thread header? Perhaps PM me? I sent one to an email address I had for Mike Smithson, but not sure if he's seen it/decided it's the worst thing he's read in a while...
When I have an idea for one I DM it to OGH via Twitter messages. I'll write it before I contact him, if he doesn't want it I'll still have benefitted from the process (I often find I realise some of my opinion is wrong when I'm putting it on paper).
OT - some amazing (but expected) results in the SNP candidate elections for Holyrood if this leaked list is accurate.
Due to the automatic advancement of 4 disabled and 4 BAME candidates to the top of the lists, some relatively unpopular candidates have the top placing.
Examples include:
West Scotland: Michelle Campbell from 8th place and 4.4% vote share over Stuart McMillan 18.3% Mid Scotland and Fife: Eva Comrie from 8th and 6.5% over J Swinney 18.6% Highlnds and Islands: Emma Rodick frrom 6th and 2.4% over Kate Forbes 31.8%(!)
Why would coastal areas do well, and central areas worse? Traffic patterns? Salt air breezes? Population density?
High population density, lower SE class, inability to work from home, overcrowded housing must all contribute. Teesside, Sunderland, Hull and Grimsby are all blue despite being coastal, and none have a particularly high ethnic population.
In Leicester it is still high in the East of the city, which is quite British Asian, but also high in Coalville and around, as well as some of the WWC social housing areas. Lockdown in a detached house compared to an overcrowded terrace is not only more comfortable, but also allows more space per family member.
@someone who would know - how would I go about submitting a thread header? Perhaps PM me? I sent one to an email address I had for Mike Smithson, but not sure if he's seen it/decided it's the worst thing he's read in a while...
I suggest you draft it and submit to @TSE via the IM system.
Could send in a precis first.
They prefer concise, but longer ones have got in if there is a reason.
My recent piece was 650 words, but @Gardenwalker's was 1400 words (included a list of policies).
My suggestion for writing it is:
- 700-1000 words - raise some new or startling points - be opinionated on some points - sow enough questions to drive conversation - don't fear being provocative if you have a basis for it
Get someone else to read for typos/comments, and as your last step go through and reduce length by 5-10% by taking out unneeded stuff. That sharpens it up nicely.
@someone who would know - how would I go about submitting a thread header? Perhaps PM me? I sent one to an email address I had for Mike Smithson, but not sure if he's seen it/decided it's the worst thing he's read in a while...
When I've submitted them I've sent them to TSE. You could send him or Mike etc a Private Message via vanilla.
Another consequence of events in the vaccination imbroglio here and in Europe has been the decision of P&O Cruises to cancel all its holidays until the end of September 2021.
Basically, the lucrative European cruising season will be lost for the second year running (or more accurately sailing). This includes not just the trips to the Med and the Canaries but the cruises to Scandinavia and Russia as well as the fly cruises due to start from Mediterranean ports such as Barcelona and Valletta.
Instead, P&O are planning a series of "Britain only" cruises for July and August - presumably, as was Royal Caribbean's move of Odyssey of the Seas to Haifa, these cruises will be solely for double vaccinated British people and seem to be glorious passages around our sceptred isles (well, some of them).
@someone who would know - how would I go about submitting a thread header? Perhaps PM me? I sent one to an email address I had for Mike Smithson, but not sure if he's seen it/decided it's the worst thing he's read in a while...
I emailed mine to TSE, having contacted him via a personal message.
@someone who would know - how would I go about submitting a thread header? Perhaps PM me? I sent one to an email address I had for Mike Smithson, but not sure if he's seen it/decided it's the worst thing he's read in a while...
I suggest you draft it and submit to @TSE via the IM system.
Could send in a precis first.
They prefer concise, but longer ones have got in if there is a reason.
My recent piece was 650 words, but @Gardenwalker's was 1400 words (included a list of policies).
My suggestion for writing it is:
- 700-1000 words - raise some new or startling points - be opinionated on some points - sow enough questions to drive conversation - don't fear being provocative if you have a basis for it
Get someone else to read for typos/comments, and as your last step go through and reduce length by 5-10% by taking out unneeded stuff. That sharpens it up nicely.
I would also add that they do like at least a token betting angle.
It will surely go down as one of the stupidest unforced errors in the history of Public Health. What were they thinking? Macron, Merkel, all of them. Truly truly bizarre, and completely unnecessary. They gained absolutely nothing, and they have killed people
I still don't really understand WHY they did it, apart from some kind of petty spite against Britain because Brexit, and Astra-Zeneca because failed deliveries - but the UK suffered those as well, and we didn't then denounce the vaccine as ineffective to "get at" the company.
MAD
Can you imagine if it had been Boris that had done it?!
Yes. He'd get away with it as he does with everything.
Oh do try and grow up for just a moment
That was a perfectly serious and insightful contribution from me there. Johnson gets away with things that would seriously damage other politicians. He is judged by different and lower standards. This is one of the many striking facets of the incredibly powerful "Boris" brand.
Of course the most important player in the conspiracy against AstraZeneca is AstraZeneca who conspired to somehow give the impression back in December that their vaccine was much less effective than others, but also they weren't sure because they accidentally gave some people in the trial half a dose. This is the origin of the lack of confidence in AZ.
The initial decision to not recommend for over 65s was a mistake, but seems like a typically German way of doing things. Macron's remarks on the other hand haven't registered at all in Germany, and will have had close to zero influence here.
Hmm, maybe the AZ study could have been better but both the MHRA and EMA made the decision to approve for all age groups based on immunogenicity not suddenly dropping off at an arbitrary age for similar vaccines.
The approach taken by the German regulator was simply incorrect because the vaccine is safe and has proven efficacy. If it turned out that there was a steep efficacy drop off from 65+ then follow up doses with Pfizer or another vaccine could easily be arranged. As it turns out a single dose of AZ has around 80% efficacy against severe symptoms and hospitalisation in the 65+ age group which is precisely what the MHRA and EMA thought would be the case.
I think the German media has done more damage to the AZ vaccine in Germany than Macron. The fake news articles about side effects have been particularly damaging as can be seen by the polling showing that people in Germany think it's unsafe when it isn't. The media reporting the side effect rate for AZ being terrible based on UK official data but simply ignoring that the Pfizer vaccine has got an almost identical rate and range of side effects and actually has got a very serious one - possible anaphylaxis - that the AZ one doesn't have.
Of course the most important player in the conspiracy against AstraZeneca is AstraZeneca who conspired to somehow give the impression back in December that their vaccine was much less effective than others, but also they weren't sure because they accidentally gave some people in the trial half a dose. This is the origin of the lack of confidence in AZ.
The initial decision to not recommend for over 65s was a mistake, but seems like a typically German way of doing things. Macron's remarks on the other hand haven't registered at all in Germany, and will have had close to zero influence here.
I'm sorry but that opening sentence is utter rubbish. Yes AZ's data wasn't as good as Pfizer's but it really shouldn't matter. The best vaccine is one available today.
Of course the best vaccine is the one available. What has that got to do with the reasons WHY people don't want the AZ vaccine?
Of course I don't really think AZ is part of an anti AZ conspiracy, because that would be ridiculous. Just as I don't think Merkel is part of an anti AZ conspiracy. But there are a few Qanon types on here who believe ridiculous things.
So why has it not been a problem in the UK? Clearly the smoke signals from the German politicians, media and - according to some one here - medical staff has had an effect on the German people.
So, no, AZ are not to blame for the situation in Germany.
Public perceptions are formed from multiple sources. AZN have certainly contributed. But from talking to doctors in the biggest refugee camps in Thailand, Kenya and Tanzania, the big issue with public perception of the AZN shot in Africa has nothing to do with Germany or Macron, but to do with why the US has not approved it yet.
Germany has been drawn into the EC propaganda war on AZ.
Suspect there will also be historical factors in each country. eg France has more history of alternative medicine (eg Homeopathy on the Health Service).
Of course the most important player in the conspiracy against AstraZeneca is AstraZeneca who conspired to somehow give the impression back in December that their vaccine was much less effective than others, but also they weren't sure because they accidentally gave some people in the trial half a dose. This is the origin of the lack of confidence in AZ.
The initial decision to not recommend for over 65s was a mistake, but seems like a typically German way of doing things. Macron's remarks on the other hand haven't registered at all in Germany, and will have had close to zero influence here.
I'm sorry but that opening sentence is utter rubbish. Yes AZ's data wasn't as good as Pfizer's but it really shouldn't matter. The best vaccine is one available today.
Of course the best vaccine is the one available. What has that got to do with the reasons WHY people don't want the AZ vaccine?
Of course I don't really think AZ is part of an anti AZ conspiracy, because that would be ridiculous. Just as I don't think Merkel is part of an anti AZ conspiracy. But there are a few Qanon types on here who believe ridiculous things.
Can you explain the horrifically innaccurate Handelsblatt report? And the way they doubled down, even when challenged? And the lack of retraction?
Serious questions
That was probably the SINGLE most damaging moment. The headline went around the world - 8% effective - and terrified a lot of people, here in the UK too
Don't like that. A direct poll of the public on what Muslim women can wear. That is not imo how such things should be handled.
So you're saying that the banning of private choices that may increase social inequality isn't always a good thing?
Bit tortuous but yes I suppose I am. And far from a gotcha it demonstrates how my world view has room for both principles and naunce.
Although tbh it was more the having a referendum on it aspect which got my nostrils wrinkling in this case. As it happens I don't support banning the burka but either way it feels wrong to decide it like that.
Has the air of the members of a golf club holding a ballot on whether you should be allowed to play in a turban.
'Principles and nuance' or just different conclusions depending on the identity of the people involved? I’m not keen to reignite the whole discussion from yesterday - I see it was in part your way of coping with the jab's side-effects, which I hope have subsided - but if you're going to ban the choices of minorities because they have socially-undesirable effects, then it makes much more sense to go after religious face-coverings than private schools. The former don't benefit anyone at all, whereas the latter at least benefit those who use them and (I would argue) are an asset to society at large.
Alternatively, we could just stop interfering with the individual's civil freedom to choose how to live their lives, which on balance would be my preference.
As for the Swiss referendum, like all votes of a similar nature, of course the result was 52-48...
Fixed-term Parliaments Act: was it repealed or is this still in progess? Anyone know?
Not repealed yet. Bill published in December 2020. It has a non-justiciability clause about prerogative powers ('a court of law may not question...') which a lot of lawyers (quite properly) won't like and will get lots of air time.
Of course the most important player in the conspiracy against AstraZeneca is AstraZeneca who conspired to somehow give the impression back in December that their vaccine was much less effective than others, but also they weren't sure because they accidentally gave some people in the trial half a dose. This is the origin of the lack of confidence in AZ.
The initial decision to not recommend for over 65s was a mistake, but seems like a typically German way of doing things. Macron's remarks on the other hand haven't registered at all in Germany, and will have had close to zero influence here.
AZ did a poor job with the trial, muddying the protocols up, and then presenting the data badly.
These problems resulted in Switzerland rejecting the application, and the US delaying it.
AZ also failed to pick up on how much protection increased over time, which was tough given the rush to put together everything.
When all is said and done, AZ will probably end up close to 90% effective, but with a longer path to protection. It may also be that AZ plus Pfizer-BioNTech gives 95% protection, and is the best way forward.
None of which has anything to do with the german government leaking incorrect information and Macron making things up about ineffectiveness (rather than, if he wanted, pointing to issues with the data).
It was an absurd take anyway given the EMA gave approval, so it's not as though regulators were goign around saying itt was a piece of crap.
Why is Moderna not very popular? Its the same approach as Pfizer.
Moderna - which I got - uses a lot more mRNA material, and has quite a lot higher incidence of anaphylaxis and other side effects than Pfizer. My wife developed a pretty nasty rash around the infection site for a few days, which is apparently pretty common.
Don't like that. A direct poll of the public on what Muslim women can wear. That is not imo how such things should be handled.
So you're saying that the banning of private choices that may increase social inequality isn't always a good thing?
Bit tortuous but yes I suppose I am. And far from a gotcha it demonstrates how my world view has room for both principles and naunce.
Although tbh it was more the having a referendum on it aspect which got my nostrils wrinkling in this case. As it happens I don't support banning the burka but either way it feels wrong to decide it like that.
Has the air of the members of a golf club holding a ballot on whether you should be allowed to play in a turban.
'Principles and nuance' or just different conclusions depending on the identity of the people involved? I’m not keen to reignite the whole discussion from yesterday - I see it was your way of coping with the jab's side-effects, which I hope have subsided - but if you're going to ban the choices of minorities because they have socially-undesirable effects, then it makes much more sense to go after religious face-coverings than private schools. The former don't benefit anyone at all, whereas the latter at least benefit those who use them and (I would argue) are an asset to society at large.
Alternatively, we could just stop interfering with the individual's civil freedom to choose how to live their lives, which on balance would be my preference.
As for the Swiss referendum, like all votes of a similar nature, of course the result was 52-48...
In fact my approach to both would be the same - strongly discourage and disincentivize but stop short of a ban. Details tbc but that's the essence of it. I'm a great believer in soft power over the clunking fist of the law.
Of course the most important player in the conspiracy against AstraZeneca is AstraZeneca who conspired to somehow give the impression back in December that their vaccine was much less effective than others, but also they weren't sure because they accidentally gave some people in the trial half a dose. This is the origin of the lack of confidence in AZ.
The initial decision to not recommend for over 65s was a mistake, but seems like a typically German way of doing things. Macron's remarks on the other hand haven't registered at all in Germany, and will have had close to zero influence here.
I'm sorry but that opening sentence is utter rubbish. Yes AZ's data wasn't as good as Pfizer's but it really shouldn't matter. The best vaccine is one available today.
Of course the best vaccine is the one available. What has that got to do with the reasons WHY people don't want the AZ vaccine?
Of course I don't really think AZ is part of an anti AZ conspiracy, because that would be ridiculous. Just as I don't think Merkel is part of an anti AZ conspiracy. But there are a few Qanon types on here who believe ridiculous things.
So why has it not been a problem in the UK? Clearly the smoke signals from the German politicians, media and - according to some one here - medical staff has had an effect on the German people.
So, no, AZ are not to blame for the situation in Germany.
Public perceptions are formed from multiple sources. AZN have certainly contributed. But from talking to doctors in the biggest refugee camps in Thailand, Kenya and Tanzania, the big issue with public perception of the AZN shot in Africa has nothing to do with Germany or Macron, but to do with why the US has not approved it yet.
Germany has been drawn into the EC propaganda war on AZ.
Suspect there will also be historical factors in each country. eg France has more history of alternative medicine (eg Homeopathy on the Health Service).
Not to mention national pride - 'our' vaccine vs 'theirs'. Reading this site (and trying to register my own emotional reactions honestly), I don't think we can deny our own national pride in the AZN vaccine colouring our perceptions of it (even if this emotional acceptance is back up by the data).
Of course the most important player in the conspiracy against AstraZeneca is AstraZeneca who conspired to somehow give the impression back in December that their vaccine was much less effective than others, but also they weren't sure because they accidentally gave some people in the trial half a dose. This is the origin of the lack of confidence in AZ.
The initial decision to not recommend for over 65s was a mistake, but seems like a typically German way of doing things. Macron's remarks on the other hand haven't registered at all in Germany, and will have had close to zero influence here.
AZ did a poor job with the trial, muddying the protocols up, and then presenting the data badly.
These problems resulted in Switzerland rejecting the application, and the US delaying it.
AZ also failed to pick up on how much protection increased over time, which was tough given the rush to put together everything.
When all is said and done, AZ will probably end up close to 90% effective, but with a longer path to protection. It may also be that AZ plus Pfizer-BioNTech gives 95% protection, and is the best way forward.
None of which has anything to do with the german government leaking incorrect information and Macron making things up about ineffectiveness (rather than, if he wanted, pointing to issues with the data).
It was an absurd take anyway given the EMA gave approval, so it's not as though regulators were goign around saying itt was a piece of crap.
Mutti has got basically every big call of her premiership wrong. Macron is a political and intellectual midget, we should expect nothing less. He’s Trump with a crapper army and a smugger face.
We are going to have to see a big expansion in capacity shortly, otherwise second doses are going to start having an impact on the amount of new people who can get jabbed.
From discussions the other evening, I seem to recall that the CCGs and vaccination centres have been told to expect a big push not from this week just about to start, but the one after - large increase in supply for "several weeks," although exactly what 'several' means has not been precisely defined.
If they can double supply for at least a month then hopefully that'll be enough to at least get the fortysomethings through the first doses (he says, hopefully,) before really large numbers of second shots come due. After that we'll presumably be reliant on J&J and Novavax if the under 40s aren't to be kept waiting for a long time; Moderna should be coming through in the not-too-distant future but there won't be enough of it to cover two doses for more than about four or five year groups.
Of course the most important player in the conspiracy against AstraZeneca is AstraZeneca who conspired to somehow give the impression back in December that their vaccine was much less effective than others, but also they weren't sure because they accidentally gave some people in the trial half a dose. This is the origin of the lack of confidence in AZ.
The initial decision to not recommend for over 65s was a mistake, but seems like a typically German way of doing things. Macron's remarks on the other hand haven't registered at all in Germany, and will have had close to zero influence here.
Hmm, maybe the AZ study could have been better but both the MHRA and EMA made the decision to approve for all age groups based on immunogenicity not suddenly dropping off at an arbitrary age for similar vaccines.
The approach taken by the German regulator was simply incorrect because the vaccine is safe and has proven efficacy. If it turned out that there was a steep efficacy drop off from 65+ then follow up doses with Pfizer or another vaccine could easily be arranged. As it turns out a single dose of AZ has around 80% efficacy against severe symptoms and hospitalisation in the 65+ age group which is precisely what the MHRA and EMA thought would be the case.
I think the German media has done more damage to the AZ vaccine in Germany than Macron. The fake news articles about side effects have been particularly damaging as can be seen by the polling showing that people in Germany think it's unsafe when it isn't. The media reporting the side effect rate for AZ being terrible based on UK official data but simply ignoring that the Pfizer vaccine has got an almost identical rate and range of side effects and actually has got a very serious one - possible anaphylaxis - that the AZ one doesn't have.
Yes, but that is what we have found out since. Indeed here it was discussed in Dec whether AzN should be used in the younger ages in the UK pending further data.
I suspect that all the vaccines will work much of a muchness. If 27% of French would rather wait for Pfizer, they should get on with the 73% happy enough to have the AZN if that is quicker. As I have said for about 6 months the main problem that other European countries will have is poor vaccination logistics. That is a bigger problem than resistance or supply, which is ramping up everywhere.
Why is Moderna not very popular? Its the same approach as Pfizer.
Moderna - which I got - uses a lot more mRNA material, and has quite a lot higher incidence of anaphylaxis and other side effects than Pfizer. My wife developed a pretty nasty rash around the infection site for a few days, which is apparently pretty common.
As an aside, I hear that CureVac is showing very similar efficacy to Pfizer and Moderna, but is showing more adverse reactions than either. As far as I'm aware, none are more serious than the flu, but a greater incidence of pretty high fevers.
Of course the most important player in the conspiracy against AstraZeneca is AstraZeneca who conspired to somehow give the impression back in December that their vaccine was much less effective than others, but also they weren't sure because they accidentally gave some people in the trial half a dose. This is the origin of the lack of confidence in AZ.
The initial decision to not recommend for over 65s was a mistake, but seems like a typically German way of doing things. Macron's remarks on the other hand haven't registered at all in Germany, and will have had close to zero influence here.
I'm sorry but that opening sentence is utter rubbish. Yes AZ's data wasn't as good as Pfizer's but it really shouldn't matter. The best vaccine is one available today.
Of course the best vaccine is the one available. What has that got to do with the reasons WHY people don't want the AZ vaccine?
Of course I don't really think AZ is part of an anti AZ conspiracy, because that would be ridiculous. Just as I don't think Merkel is part of an anti AZ conspiracy. But there are a few Qanon types on here who believe ridiculous things.
So why has it not been a problem in the UK? Clearly the smoke signals from the German politicians, media and - according to some one here - medical staff has had an effect on the German people.
So, no, AZ are not to blame for the situation in Germany.
Public perceptions are formed from multiple sources. AZN have certainly contributed. But from talking to doctors in the biggest refugee camps in Thailand, Kenya and Tanzania, the big issue with public perception of the AZN shot in Africa has nothing to do with Germany or Macron, but to do with why the US has not approved it yet.
Germany has been drawn into the EC propaganda war on AZ.
Suspect there will also be historical factors in each country. eg France has more history of alternative medicine (eg Homeopathy on the Health Service).
Not to mention national pride - 'our' vaccine vs 'theirs'. Reading this site (and trying to register my own emotional reactions honestly), I don't think we can deny our own national pride in the AZN vaccine colouring our perceptions of it (even if this emotional acceptance is back up by the data).
I think there's an acceptance in the UK of taking whatever vaccine your given, honestly vaccine preference isn't something I come across a lot and it's actually fairly evenly split between both vaccines.
I have just entered my first LFT result on the NHS website.
They have just texted and emailed me to say I tested negative.
I already knew that, actually, on account of, y'know, HAVING DONE THE FECKING TEST MYSELF.
What is the point of telling me what I already know?
And what is the cost?
Marginal - it would have been more expensive to design a different IT system that distinguished and determined whether to send an automated SMS or not
In addition, when I worked for a company that was bulk buying SMS messages for customer alerts, many of the contracts offered were a fixed price for *up to* a number of texts (millions) - the marginal cost of sending a text was virtually zero.
Of course the most important player in the conspiracy against AstraZeneca is AstraZeneca who conspired to somehow give the impression back in December that their vaccine was much less effective than others, but also they weren't sure because they accidentally gave some people in the trial half a dose. This is the origin of the lack of confidence in AZ.
The initial decision to not recommend for over 65s was a mistake, but seems like a typically German way of doing things. Macron's remarks on the other hand haven't registered at all in Germany, and will have had close to zero influence here.
I'm sorry but that opening sentence is utter rubbish. Yes AZ's data wasn't as good as Pfizer's but it really shouldn't matter. The best vaccine is one available today.
Of course the best vaccine is the one available. What has that got to do with the reasons WHY people don't want the AZ vaccine?
Of course I don't really think AZ is part of an anti AZ conspiracy, because that would be ridiculous. Just as I don't think Merkel is part of an anti AZ conspiracy. But there are a few Qanon types on here who believe ridiculous things.
Can you explain the horrifically innaccurate Handelsblatt report? And the way they doubled down, even when challenged? And the lack of retraction?
Serious questions
That was probably the SINGLE most damaging moment. The headline went around the world - 8% effective - and terrified a lot of people, here in the UK too
It's not the only damaging thing though.
Switzerland rejected approval of AZ. The US has not approved it. And South Africa has stopped using it.
My wife is South African - got passed a meme from her friends in Jo'burg - which was picture of two really fit guys, one called Pfizer, the other Moderna, alongside a fat unhealthy looking bloke called AstraZeneca.
All these things have fed into the narrative that AZ is not as effective as the other two.
Ultimately, though @Foxy, is right on this. You ignore the vaccine sceptics and get as many jabs into arm as possible. You don't want AZ? Tough. I'll give the vaccine to someone else.
We are going to have to see a big expansion in capacity shortly, otherwise second doses are going to start having an impact on the amount of new people who can get jabbed.
We should be just about through Group 9 before the second doses really ramp up.
Except in Wales, where there seems to be an earlier switch to the second jab.
(Full disclosure: I'm Group 9, so there may be an element of wishcasting in the above)
Of course the most important player in the conspiracy against AstraZeneca is AstraZeneca who conspired to somehow give the impression back in December that their vaccine was much less effective than others, but also they weren't sure because they accidentally gave some people in the trial half a dose. This is the origin of the lack of confidence in AZ.
The initial decision to not recommend for over 65s was a mistake, but seems like a typically German way of doing things. Macron's remarks on the other hand haven't registered at all in Germany, and will have had close to zero influence here.
I'm sorry but that opening sentence is utter rubbish. Yes AZ's data wasn't as good as Pfizer's but it really shouldn't matter. The best vaccine is one available today.
Of course the best vaccine is the one available. What has that got to do with the reasons WHY people don't want the AZ vaccine?
Of course I don't really think AZ is part of an anti AZ conspiracy, because that would be ridiculous. Just as I don't think Merkel is part of an anti AZ conspiracy. But there are a few Qanon types on here who believe ridiculous things.
So why has it not been a problem in the UK? Clearly the smoke signals from the German politicians, media and - according to some one here - medical staff has had an effect on the German people.
So, no, AZ are not to blame for the situation in Germany.
Public perceptions are formed from multiple sources. AZN have certainly contributed. But from talking to doctors in the biggest refugee camps in Thailand, Kenya and Tanzania, the big issue with public perception of the AZN shot in Africa has nothing to do with Germany or Macron, but to do with why the US has not approved it yet.
Germany has been drawn into the EC propaganda war on AZ.
Suspect there will also be historical factors in each country. eg France has more history of alternative medicine (eg Homeopathy on the Health Service).
Not to mention national pride - 'our' vaccine vs 'theirs'. Reading this site (and trying to register my own emotional reactions honestly), I don't think we can deny our own national pride in the AZN vaccine colouring our perceptions of it (even if this emotional acceptance is back up by the data).
I think there's an acceptance in the UK of taking whatever vaccine your given, honestly vaccine preference isn't something I come across a lot and it's actually fairly evenly split between both vaccines.
OT - some amazing (but expected) results in the SNP candidate elections for Holyrood if this leaked list is accurate.
Due to the automatic advancement of 4 disabled and 4 BAME candidates to the top of the lists, some relatively unpopular candidates have the top placing.
Examples include:
West Scotland: Michelle Campbell from 8th place and 4.4% vote share over Stuart McMillan 18.3% Mid Scotland and Fife: Eva Comrie from 8th and 6.5% over J Swinney 18.6% Highlnds and Islands: Emma Rodick frrom 6th and 2.4% over Kate Forbes 31.8%(!)
Looking at it, the interesting one is that the candidate list for the Glasgow Region is:
GLASGOW
Roza Salih Nicola Sturgeon Clare Haughey Ivan McKee Bill Kidd Alex Kerr Suzanne McLaughlin Kaukab Stewart Katy Loudon Christina Cannon Abdul Bostani
and there is a suggestion of a potential decapitation strategy wrt Nicola Sturgeon in teh constituency section.
Because of the BAME/disabled weighting, what we’ve arrived at is a situation where Nicola Sturgeon is not at the top of the Glasgow regional list. And if we were Scottish Labour in particular, we’d be pricking our ears up at that news.
Word from our Scottish Labour mole – and we should note we don’t have quite such impeccable sources in Labour as we do in the SNP – is that Anas Sarwar is very likely to contest Glasgow Southside, because it would look just too poor if Scottish Labour’s branch manager didn’t at least try to win a constituency seat. And indeed according to Wikipedia he already is.
Glasgow Southside’s MSP is Nicola Sturgeon.
Which is interesting. More at the link. The Regional List weakens Plan B, if Plan B is needed.
Of course the most important player in the conspiracy against AstraZeneca is AstraZeneca who conspired to somehow give the impression back in December that their vaccine was much less effective than others, but also they weren't sure because they accidentally gave some people in the trial half a dose. This is the origin of the lack of confidence in AZ.
The initial decision to not recommend for over 65s was a mistake, but seems like a typically German way of doing things. Macron's remarks on the other hand haven't registered at all in Germany, and will have had close to zero influence here.
I'm sorry but that opening sentence is utter rubbish. Yes AZ's data wasn't as good as Pfizer's but it really shouldn't matter. The best vaccine is one available today.
Of course the best vaccine is the one available. What has that got to do with the reasons WHY people don't want the AZ vaccine?
Of course I don't really think AZ is part of an anti AZ conspiracy, because that would be ridiculous. Just as I don't think Merkel is part of an anti AZ conspiracy. But there are a few Qanon types on here who believe ridiculous things.
Can you explain the horrifically innaccurate Handelsblatt report? And the way they doubled down, even when challenged? And the lack of retraction?
Serious questions
That was probably the SINGLE most damaging moment. The headline went around the world - 8% effective - and terrified a lot of people, here in the UK too
Isn't the problem that the single-figure percentage was technically true, but utterly meaningless? In the sense that, if you took the trial data available for oldies and ran it though the standard effectiveness calculation, it spat out an alarmingly low number.
The trouble being that you had to look at the range bar for that calculation, which (from memory) went from "works perfectly" to "makes people sicker". There simply weren't enough data to tell. In normal times, saying "go back and collect a proper amount of data properly" is exactly the right thing to do. Of course, these aren't normal times, but the degree of abnormality varies from place to place. And it's worth noting that plenty of agencies have been cautious in their approval of the AZ vaccine.
@Malmesbury's idea, acknowledging that the data situation was an issue that needed sorting, would have made a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the whole thing then caught up in the multiple politicses of Brexit. And a failure to understand that, if your country is a bit leery about vaccines in the first place, you really do have to dot the i's and cross the t's, no matter how tedious that is.
What Macron said was stupid and counterproductive, though.
Of course the most important player in the conspiracy against AstraZeneca is AstraZeneca who conspired to somehow give the impression back in December that their vaccine was much less effective than others, but also they weren't sure because they accidentally gave some people in the trial half a dose. This is the origin of the lack of confidence in AZ.
The initial decision to not recommend for over 65s was a mistake, but seems like a typically German way of doing things. Macron's remarks on the other hand haven't registered at all in Germany, and will have had close to zero influence here.
I'm sorry but that opening sentence is utter rubbish. Yes AZ's data wasn't as good as Pfizer's but it really shouldn't matter. The best vaccine is one available today.
AZ did not do a good job with the trial and with the presentation of the data.
OT - some amazing (but expected) results in the SNP candidate elections for Holyrood if this leaked list is accurate.
Due to the automatic advancement of 4 disabled and 4 BAME candidates to the top of the lists, some relatively unpopular candidates have the top placing.
Examples include:
West Scotland: Michelle Campbell from 8th place and 4.4% vote share over Stuart McMillan 18.3% Mid Scotland and Fife: Eva Comrie from 8th and 6.5% over J Swinney 18.6% Highlnds and Islands: Emma Rodick frrom 6th and 2.4% over Kate Forbes 31.8%(!)
I have just entered my first LFT result on the NHS website.
They have just texted and emailed me to say I tested negative.
I already knew that, actually, on account of, y'know, HAVING DONE THE FECKING TEST MYSELF.
What is the point of telling me what I already know?
And what is the cost?
Marginal - it would have been more expensive to design a different IT system that distinguished and determined whether to send an automated SMS or not
In addition, when I worked for a company that was bulk buying SMS messages for customer alerts, many of the contracts offered were a fixed price for *up to* a number of texts (millions) - the marginal cost of sending a text was virtually zero.
My DH sends appointment reminders, which are negligible next to the cost of a missed appointment £100+. There may well be spare capacity around due to reduced services.
I have just entered my first LFT result on the NHS website.
They have just texted and emailed me to say I tested negative.
I already knew that, actually, on account of, y'know, HAVING DONE THE FECKING TEST MYSELF.
What is the point of telling me what I already know?
And what is the cost?
Marginal - it would have been more expensive to design a different IT system that distinguished and determined whether to send an automated SMS or not
In addition, when I worked for a company that was bulk buying SMS messages for customer alerts, many of the contracts offered were a fixed price for *up to* a number of texts (millions) - the marginal cost of sending a text was virtually zero.
Even if you're paying a cent a message, then 1,000,000 texts is only $10,000. And it's quite possible the UK government is paying a tenth of a penny or less.
I have just entered my first LFT result on the NHS website.
They have just texted and emailed me to say I tested negative.
I already knew that, actually, on account of, y'know, HAVING DONE THE FECKING TEST MYSELF.
What is the point of telling me what I already know?
And what is the cost?
Marginal - it would have been more expensive to design a different IT system that distinguished and determined whether to send an automated SMS or not
In addition, when I worked for a company that was bulk buying SMS messages for customer alerts, many of the contracts offered were a fixed price for *up to* a number of texts (millions) - the marginal cost of sending a text was virtually zero.
Even if you're paying a cent a message, then 1,000,000 texts is only $10,000. And it's quite possible the UK government is paying a tenth of a penny or less.
There's loads of companies that offer bulk sending of SMS as part of subscription marketing packages.
I have just entered my first LFT result on the NHS website.
They have just texted and emailed me to say I tested negative.
I already knew that, actually, on account of, y'know, HAVING DONE THE FECKING TEST MYSELF.
What is the point of telling me what I already know?
And what is the cost?
Marginal - it would have been more expensive to design a different IT system that distinguished and determined whether to send an automated SMS or not
In addition, when I worked for a company that was bulk buying SMS messages for customer alerts, many of the contracts offered were a fixed price for *up to* a number of texts (millions) - the marginal cost of sending a text was virtually zero.
Even if you're paying a cent a message, then 1,000,000 texts is only $10,000. And it's quite possible the UK government is paying a tenth of a penny or less.
Designing a change in the system to filter the results would probably cost far more than that - and increase the risk of a mistake meaning someone who should get a text gets filtered out instead.
@someone who would know - how would I go about submitting a thread header? Perhaps PM me? I sent one to an email address I had for Mike Smithson, but not sure if he's seen it/decided it's the worst thing he's read in a while...
When I have an idea for one I DM it to OGH via Twitter messages. I'll write it before I contact him, if he doesn't want it I'll still have benefitted from the process (I often find I realise some of my opinion is wrong when I'm putting it on paper).
In the US, Trump has said he'll campaign against Lisa Murkowski.
Interesting question time.
They now have ranked choice voting. Now, every Democrat will put Murkowski second. But presumably there will be (at least) one Trump backed Republican. Could we end up with:
Democrat 35% Republican (Trump) 35% Murkowski 30%
In which case, which way will Murkowski's supporters go?
Alternatively, will we have about seven candidates, in which case I would have thought Murkowski would be an absolutely shoo in for the second round, and for the seat.
Another consequence of events in the vaccination imbroglio here and in Europe has been the decision of P&O Cruises to cancel all its holidays until the end of September 2021.
Basically, the lucrative European cruising season will be lost for the second year running (or more accurately sailing). This includes not just the trips to the Med and the Canaries but the cruises to Scandinavia and Russia as well as the fly cruises due to start from Mediterranean ports such as Barcelona and Valletta.
Instead, P&O are planning a series of "Britain only" cruises for July and August - presumably, as was Royal Caribbean's move of Odyssey of the Seas to Haifa, these cruises will be solely for double vaccinated British people and seem to be glorious passages around our sceptred isles (well, some of them).
Let’s hope they have better luck than the Italian and Caribbean cruises that have tried to resume. On one of the Caribbean ones, the whole cruise was aborted for what turned out to be a false positive test result.
The challenge they have is the crews cast to the four winds around the world, young and hence well down the vaccination queue, and with considerable travel obstacles making reassembling a ship’s crew seriously difficult.
Why is Moderna not very popular? Its the same approach as Pfizer.
Moderna - which I got - uses a lot more mRNA material, and has quite a lot higher incidence of anaphylaxis and other side effects than Pfizer. My wife developed a pretty nasty rash around the infection site for a few days, which is apparently pretty common.
I presume you meant her “injection” site!
But site specific side effects are common with all vaccines
This is the sort of thing that really fecks me off.
I want the Green Party to be 100% focused on environmental issues, not dicking about trying to appeal to any other right-on cause that is flavour of the month.
Perhaps the time is right for a proper Eco-authoritarian party?
We are going to have to see a big expansion in capacity shortly, otherwise second doses are going to start having an impact on the amount of new people who can get jabbed.
From discussions the other evening, I seem to recall that the CCGs and vaccination centres have been told to expect a big push not from this week just about to start, but the one after - large increase in supply for "several weeks," although exactly what 'several' means has not been precisely defined.
If they can double supply for at least a month then hopefully that'll be enough to at least get the fortysomethings through the first doses (he says, hopefully,) before really large numbers of second shots come due. After that we'll presumably be reliant on J&J and Novavax if the under 40s aren't to be kept waiting for a long time; Moderna should be coming through in the not-too-distant future but there won't be enough of it to cover two doses for more than about four or five year groups.
I am just back from my AZN. Strangely anticlimactic after all the waiting and hype. They said they’d been doing 500 a day at the main vaccination centre every day since they opened.
In the US, Trump has said he'll campaign against Lisa Murkowski.
Interesting question time.
They now have ranked choice voting. Now, every Democrat will put Murkowski second. But presumably there will be (at least) one Trump backed Republican. Could we end up with:
Democrat 35% Republican (Trump) 35% Murkowski 30%
In which case, which way will Murkowski's supporters go?
Alternatively, will we have about seven candidates, in which case I would have thought Murkowski would be an absolutely shoo in for the second round, and for the seat.
Don't they have an open primary. Then top 4 to final round? Which system appears to favour her as the transfer friendly candidate.
This is the sort of thing that really fecks me off.
I want the Green Party to be 100% focused on environmental issues, not dicking about trying to appeal to any other right-on cause that is flavour of the month.
Perhaps the time is right for a proper Eco-authoritarian party?
Yes, but radical environmentalism requires a significant reordering of society, so permeates all parts of politics. That is indeed where support is coming from now that Labour's policy is "what the government is doing, but with a face like a smacked arse"
@someone who would know - how would I go about submitting a thread header? Perhaps PM me? I sent one to an email address I had for Mike Smithson, but not sure if he's seen it/decided it's the worst thing he's read in a while...
When I have an idea for one I DM it to OGH via Twitter messages. I'll write it before I contact him, if he doesn't want it I'll still have benefitted from the process (I often find I realise some of my opinion is wrong when I'm putting it on paper).
You’re Boris and I claim my £5
Though if the piece in today's Sunday Times is to be believed, that might need to be an IOU.
Perhaps you should support the Burning Pink Party, if you fancy eco-authoritarianism. Their manifesto includes abolishing the London Mayor and Assembly and replacing them with a system of decision making Soviets. They take a pretty hard line on the environment. This is their London Mayor candidate:
The big news today should be the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe from an Iranian prison and the hope that the government can stop the Iranians putting her before another court, as they are promising to do, and extending her and her family's agony.
Her husband lives in West Hampstead and there were regular events in Fortune Green highlighting her case. Tulip Siddiq deserves credit for the hard work she has put in for this family. Boris does not.
Here is a a woman (and husband and young daughter) who really have suffered. Her release ought to be much bigger news than it will be because too many of the public and media are obsessed with privileged people claiming victimhood over trivialities as some sort of badge of honour.
The "woe is me" culture we seem to have developed is quite nauseating. People suffer and those who do need help. But suffering is not a virtue, it does not make one morally better than anyone else, it should not make one immune from criticism and being a " victim" should not, in a well ordered society or life, be something to aspire to.
I really hope the Iranians show some mercy and Nazanin can be reunited ASAP with her family.
I still wonder when and why 55 year olds came to be dropped from Group 8. No-one seems to be making a fuss about it.
I don't think they have been dropped from Group 8 - the 56 thing is almost certainly demand management. There is no point in flooding the system with appointments too far into the future.
To get some idea of scaling, the sizes of each year cohort from ONS 2019
This is the sort of thing that really fecks me off.
I want the Green Party to be 100% focused on environmental issues, not dicking about trying to appeal to any other right-on cause that is flavour of the month.
Perhaps the time is right for a proper Eco-authoritarian party?
Yes, but radical environmentalism requires a significant reordering of society, so permeates all parts of politics. That is indeed where support is coming from now that Labour's policy is "what the government is doing, but with a face like a smacked arse"
That's part of the problem. People being attracted to the Greens by wokism instead of environmentalism will just turn the party into another bunch of handwringers. Who is going to be advocating mass sterilisation out of that shower?
Perhaps you should support the Burning Pink Party, if you fancy eco-authoritarianism. Their manifesto includes abolishing the London Mayor and Assembly and replacing them with a system of decision making Soviets. They take a pretty hard line on the environment. This is their London Mayor candidate:
I’m mildly intrigued by the idea of Soviets that make decisions. The whole problem with Soviets was that they were unable to make decisions so they became pointless talking shops.
But not as amused as I am by the idea of a Communist society that cares about the environment, given the appalling environmental record of the Soviet Union, the former Warsaw Pact countries and China.
I am in the market for some new garden furniture and am quite taken by that being sat on by Harry, Megs and Oprah. Any ideas on where one buys such?
If you have to ask, you probably you can't afford it.....
It was quite amusing about Putin's choice of Italian decor, its so exclusive they never give prices, but they make so few items they actually showed his pieces on their website as the recent example of their work.
When navalny team phomed them up, the admin person answering the phone heard a Russian accent and responded to them as our Russian (singular) client.
This is the sort of thing that really fecks me off.
I want the Green Party to be 100% focused on environmental issues, not dicking about trying to appeal to any other right-on cause that is flavour of the month.
Perhaps the time is right for a proper Eco-authoritarian party?
Yes, but radical environmentalism requires a significant reordering of society, so permeates all parts of politics. That is indeed where support is coming from now that Labour's policy is "what the government is doing, but with a face like a smacked arse"
That's part of the problem. People being attracted to the Greens by wokism instead of environmentalism will just turn the party into another bunch of handwringers. Who is going to be advocating mass sterilisation out of that shower?
To be fair, Trans women are sterile...it's a start...
This is the sort of thing that really fecks me off.
I want the Green Party to be 100% focused on environmental issues, not dicking about trying to appeal to any other right-on cause that is flavour of the month.
Perhaps the time is right for a proper Eco-authoritarian party?
Tried it in Germany, they planned very far ahead but lasted barely 25 years. Managed to get a very large amount of polluting German heavy industry destroyed, mind.
Perhaps you should support the Burning Pink Party, if you fancy eco-authoritarianism. Their manifesto includes abolishing the London Mayor and Assembly and replacing them with a system of decision making Soviets. They take a pretty hard line on the environment. This is their London Mayor candidate:
This is the sort of thing that really fecks me off.
I want the Green Party to be 100% focused on environmental issues, not dicking about trying to appeal to any other right-on cause that is flavour of the month.
Perhaps the time is right for a proper Eco-authoritarian party?
Tried it in Germany, they planned very far ahead but lasted barely 25 years. Managed to get a very large amount of polluting German heavy industry destroyed, mind.
This is the sort of thing that really fecks me off.
I want the Green Party to be 100% focused on environmental issues, not dicking about trying to appeal to any other right-on cause that is flavour of the month.
Perhaps the time is right for a proper Eco-authoritarian party?
Yes, but radical environmentalism requires a significant reordering of society, so permeates all parts of politics. That is indeed where support is coming from now that Labour's policy is "what the government is doing, but with a face like a smacked arse"
There, I would challenge whether "radical" environmentalism is necessary.
For me, the Greens have to drop their pseudo-socialism / desire for micro-control by Government - as it is not the guaranteed efficient way to run anything.
Perhaps you should support the Burning Pink Party, if you fancy eco-authoritarianism. Their manifesto includes abolishing the London Mayor and Assembly and replacing them with a system of decision making Soviets. They take a pretty hard line on the environment. This is their London Mayor candidate:
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
I still wonder when and why 55 year olds came to be dropped from Group 8. No-one seems to be making a fuss about it.
It was similar when the over 65s included 64 year olds. So the last group was 60-63 not 60-64. Now it's 56-59. Maybe next group will be 52-55 now?
I'll be happy if they add 54-55 next Saturday. Which, coincidentally, is my 54th birthday.
Any chance they could take it down to those under 38 by April 1st?
At current rate they’ll be doing the 40-44s at the end of March and the next batch from the weekend 3 April. Although the wave of second doses about to hit is likely to slow things down, I guess.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
Based on the gap between referendum 1 and referendum 2, he should get a chance to make it best of three in 2057. He'd be 94 by then, so it's achievable...
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
I still wonder when and why 55 year olds came to be dropped from Group 8. No-one seems to be making a fuss about it.
It was similar when the over 65s included 64 year olds. So the last group was 60-63 not 60-64. Now it's 56-59. Maybe next group will be 52-55 now?
I'll be happy if they add 54-55 next Saturday. Which, coincidentally, is my 54th birthday.
Any chance they could take it down to those under 38 by April 1st?
At current rate they’ll be doing the 40-44s at the end of March and the next batch from the weekend 3 April. Although the wave of second doses about to hit is likely to slow things down, I guess.
The sweet spot from a personal point of view would be Holy Week, which would both give me time to get over any side effects and minimise the time in school before I would have built immunity.
I’m not terribly optimistic that will happen. However, the more clinically vulnerable get jabbed, the less important that becomes.
This is the sort of thing that really fecks me off.
I want the Green Party to be 100% focused on environmental issues, not dicking about trying to appeal to any other right-on cause that is flavour of the month.
Perhaps the time is right for a proper Eco-authoritarian party?
Yes, but radical environmentalism requires a significant reordering of society, so permeates all parts of politics. That is indeed where support is coming from now that Labour's policy is "what the government is doing, but with a face like a smacked arse"
There, I would challenge whether "radical" environmentalism is necessary.
For me, the Greens have to drop their pseudo-socialism / desire for micro-control by Government - as it is not the guaranteed efficient way to run anything.
I'm pretty environmentally minded.
I'm looking forward to a world where the vast bulk of electricity is generated from renewable sources, where cars are electric, and the water and air are clean.
But I'm not anti-progress, and I think the best way to get to this goal is via giving the free market gentle nudges through taxes and subsidies.
Based on the gap between referendum 1 and referendum 2, he should get a chance to make it best of three in 2057. He'd be 94 by then, so it's achievable...
I dunno.
If Brexit is as catastrophic as they believe, then we could be back inside within a decade. If it is far from a disaster, we will never return
Rhetoric is about to collide with reality - for all. Brace.
Comments
Due to the automatic advancement of 4 disabled and 4 BAME candidates to the top of the lists, some relatively unpopular candidates have the top placing.
Examples include:
West Scotland: Michelle Campbell from 8th place and 4.4% vote share over Stuart McMillan 18.3%
Mid Scotland and Fife: Eva Comrie from 8th and 6.5% over J Swinney 18.6%
Highlnds and Islands: Emma Rodick frrom 6th and 2.4% over Kate Forbes 31.8%(!)
Results here: https://twitter.com/FananaBama
Final ranking: https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-uncertain-future/
In Leicester it is still high in the East of the city, which is quite British Asian, but also high in Coalville and around, as well as some of the WWC social housing areas. Lockdown in a detached house compared to an overcrowded terrace is not only more comfortable, but also allows more space per family member.
Could send in a precis first.
They prefer concise, but longer ones have got in if there is a reason.
My recent piece was 650 words, but @Gardenwalker's was 1400 words (included a list of policies).
My suggestion for writing it is:
- 700-1000 words
- raise some new or startling points
- be opinionated on some points
- sow enough questions to drive conversation
- don't fear being provocative if you have a basis for it
Get someone else to read for typos/comments, and as your last step go through and reduce length by 5-10% by taking out unneeded stuff. That sharpens it up nicely.
Basically, the lucrative European cruising season will be lost for the second year running (or more accurately sailing). This includes not just the trips to the Med and the Canaries but the cruises to Scandinavia and Russia as well as the fly cruises due to start from Mediterranean ports such as Barcelona and Valletta.
Instead, P&O are planning a series of "Britain only" cruises for July and August - presumably, as was Royal Caribbean's move of Odyssey of the Seas to Haifa, these cruises will be solely for double vaccinated British people and seem to be glorious passages around our sceptred isles (well, some of them).
The approach taken by the German regulator was simply incorrect because the vaccine is safe and has proven efficacy. If it turned out that there was a steep efficacy drop off from 65+ then follow up doses with Pfizer or another vaccine could easily be arranged. As it turns out a single dose of AZ has around 80% efficacy against severe symptoms and hospitalisation in the 65+ age group which is precisely what the MHRA and EMA thought would be the case.
I think the German media has done more damage to the AZ vaccine in Germany than Macron. The fake news articles about side effects have been particularly damaging as can be seen by the polling showing that people in Germany think it's unsafe when it isn't. The media reporting the side effect rate for AZ being terrible based on UK official data but simply ignoring that the Pfizer vaccine has got an almost identical rate and range of side effects and actually has got a very serious one - possible anaphylaxis - that the AZ one doesn't have.
Suspect there will also be historical factors in each country. eg France has more history of alternative medicine (eg Homeopathy on the Health Service).
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/940027/Draft-Fixed-term-Parliaments-Act-Repeal-Bill.pdf
Serious questions
That was probably the SINGLE most damaging moment. The headline went around the world - 8% effective - and terrified a lot of people, here in the UK too
Alternatively, we could just stop interfering with the individual's civil freedom to choose how to live their lives, which on balance would be my preference.
As for the Swiss referendum, like all votes of a similar nature, of course the result was 52-48...
It was an absurd take anyway given the EMA gave approval, so it's not as though regulators were goign around saying itt was a piece of crap.
If they can double supply for at least a month then hopefully that'll be enough to at least get the fortysomethings through the first doses (he says, hopefully,) before really large numbers of second shots come due. After that we'll presumably be reliant on J&J and Novavax if the under 40s aren't to be kept waiting for a long time; Moderna should be coming through in the not-too-distant future but there won't be enough of it to cover two doses for more than about four or five year groups.
I suspect that all the vaccines will work much of a muchness. If 27% of French would rather wait for Pfizer, they should get on with the 73% happy enough to have the AZN if that is quicker. As I have said for about 6 months the main problem that other European countries will have is poor vaccination logistics. That is a bigger problem than resistance or supply, which is ramping up everywhere.
Switzerland rejected approval of AZ.
The US has not approved it.
And South Africa has stopped using it.
My wife is South African - got passed a meme from her friends in Jo'burg - which was picture of two really fit guys, one called Pfizer, the other Moderna, alongside a fat unhealthy looking bloke called AstraZeneca.
All these things have fed into the narrative that AZ is not as effective as the other two.
Ultimately, though @Foxy, is right on this. You ignore the vaccine sceptics and get as many jabs into arm as possible. You don't want AZ? Tough. I'll give the vaccine to someone else.
Which is equally bonkers.
GLASGOW
Roza Salih
Nicola Sturgeon
Clare Haughey
Ivan McKee
Bill Kidd
Alex Kerr
Suzanne McLaughlin
Kaukab Stewart
Katy Loudon
Christina Cannon
Abdul Bostani
and there is a suggestion of a potential decapitation strategy wrt Nicola Sturgeon in teh constituency section.
Because of the BAME/disabled weighting, what we’ve arrived at is a situation where Nicola Sturgeon is not at the top of the Glasgow regional list. And if we were Scottish Labour in particular, we’d be pricking our ears up at that news.
Word from our Scottish Labour mole – and we should note we don’t have quite such impeccable sources in Labour as we do in the SNP – is that Anas Sarwar is very likely to contest Glasgow Southside, because it would look just too poor if Scottish Labour’s branch manager didn’t at least try to win a constituency seat. And indeed according to Wikipedia he already is.
Glasgow Southside’s MSP is Nicola Sturgeon.
Which is interesting. More at the link. The Regional List weakens Plan B, if Plan B is needed.
I don't know enough detail to say more than that.
https://twitter.com/TheGreenParty/status/1368610135002714112?s=20
The trouble being that you had to look at the range bar for that calculation, which (from memory) went from "works perfectly" to "makes people sicker". There simply weren't enough data to tell. In normal times, saying "go back and collect a proper amount of data properly" is exactly the right thing to do. Of course, these aren't normal times, but the degree of abnormality varies from place to place. And it's worth noting that plenty of agencies have been cautious in their approval of the AZ vaccine.
@Malmesbury's idea, acknowledging that the data situation was an issue that needed sorting, would have made a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the whole thing then caught up in the multiple politicses of Brexit. And a failure to understand that, if your country is a bit leery about vaccines in the first place, you really do have to dot the i's and cross the t's, no matter how tedious that is.
What Macron said was stupid and counterproductive, though.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/business/coronavirus-vaccine-astrazeneca-oxford.html
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/07/royal-commentators-hoaxed-into-critique-of-meghan-interview-before-seeing-it
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1368561688895754241?s=19
Interesting question time.
They now have ranked choice voting. Now, every Democrat will put Murkowski second. But presumably there will be (at least) one Trump backed Republican. Could we end up with:
Democrat 35%
Republican (Trump) 35%
Murkowski 30%
In which case, which way will Murkowski's supporters go?
Alternatively, will we have about seven candidates, in which case I would have thought Murkowski would be an absolutely shoo in for the second round, and for the seat.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsAust/status/1368346680047767556
It's obvious which was a better decision.
The challenge they have is the crews cast to the four winds around the world, young and hence well down the vaccination queue, and with considerable travel obstacles making reassembling a ship’s crew seriously difficult.
But site specific side effects are common with all vaccines
I want the Green Party to be 100% focused on environmental issues, not dicking about trying to appeal to any other right-on cause that is flavour of the month.
Perhaps the time is right for a proper Eco-authoritarian party?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/965777/Budget_2021_policy_costings_.pdf
Your point stands, though.
Which system appears to favour her as the transfer friendly candidate.
Total proceeds from stamp duty are about £12bn in a normal year but heavily weighted to more expensive properties which have not been given a holiday.
Also my understanding was that the cost of a 1% raise for nurses is £1.5bn per year
Perhaps you should support the Burning Pink Party, if you fancy eco-authoritarianism. Their manifesto includes abolishing the London Mayor and Assembly and replacing them with a system of decision making Soviets. They take a pretty hard line on the environment. This is their London Mayor candidate:
https://twitter.com/Valerie4London/status/1332367442820149249?s=19
Her husband lives in West Hampstead and there were regular events in Fortune Green highlighting her case. Tulip Siddiq deserves credit for the hard work she has put in for this family. Boris does not.
Here is a a woman (and husband and young daughter) who really have suffered. Her release ought to be much bigger news than it will be because too many of the public and media are obsessed with privileged people claiming victimhood over trivialities as some sort of badge of honour.
The "woe is me" culture we seem to have developed is quite nauseating. People suffer and those who do need help. But suffering is not a virtue, it does not make one morally better than anyone else, it should not make one immune from criticism and being a " victim" should not, in a well ordered society or life, be something to aspire to.
I really hope the Iranians show some mercy and Nazanin can be reunited ASAP with her family.
To get some idea of scaling, the sizes of each year cohort from ONS 2019
50 924,754
51 924,666
52 936,289
53 934,335
54 940,971
55 930,783
56 909,684
57 888,131
58 856,779
59 820,531
60 801,220
Like your notion that taxing buyers less makes it harder to buy.
Or your notion that there's nothing to aid investment in broadband in a Budget the signature change of which was incentivising investment.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1368633707305857028?s=20
But not as amused as I am by the idea of a Communist society that cares about the environment, given the appalling environmental record of the Soviet Union, the former Warsaw Pact countries and China.
It was quite amusing about Putin's choice of Italian decor, its so exclusive they never give prices, but they make so few items they actually showed his pieces on their website as the recent example of their work.
When navalny team phomed them up, the admin person answering the phone heard a Russian accent and responded to them as our Russian (singular) client.
Managed to get a very large amount of polluting German heavy industry destroyed, mind.
For me, the Greens have to drop their pseudo-socialism / desire for micro-control by Government - as it is not the guaranteed efficient way to run anything.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Who pays stamp duty? Do you even know?
https://twitter.com/Oprah/status/1368593267932139525?s=19
I’m not terribly optimistic that will happen. However, the more clinically vulnerable get jabbed, the less important that becomes.
It's not without merit, as a comparison
https://twitter.com/BazStrong86/status/1142618087113613314?s=20
I'm looking forward to a world where the vast bulk of electricity is generated from renewable sources, where cars are electric, and the water and air are clean.
But I'm not anti-progress, and I think the best way to get to this goal is via giving the free market gentle nudges through taxes and subsidies.
The Greens are not the party for me.
If Brexit is as catastrophic as they believe, then we could be back inside within a decade. If it is far from a disaster, we will never return
Rhetoric is about to collide with reality - for all. Brace.