The AZ debacle calls into question not the vaccine (the facts will eventually sort that out) but the EU's beloved precautionary principle itself. What kind of principle is it that can kill your people while you burnish your halo, EU?
I agree that the pause will kill people and is completely wrong. But you're mistaken to drag EU regulation into it. The EU regulators approve the use of AZ. It's national regulators exercising the right to override the EU that are causing the issue. If you really wanted to use the case to talk about the EU, it would be an example of a need for less national sovereignty and more central power for the EU. But that would be silly too - the reality is simply that there are over 100 national regulators in the world and some (inside and outside the EU) are being exaggeratedly cautious.
More generally, not everything is about everything else. Some things have nothing to do with Brexit.
Brexit is like Sex.
Tom: "I mean, Sex didn't even enter into it!"
Geraldine: "Oh, but of course it did, darling. I don't think he would have given [the money] to me if I had hair like Excelsoir and little short legs like an alligator. Sex always has something to do with it, dear...From the time you're about so big, and wondering why your girlfriends' fathers are getting so arch all of a sudden. Nothing wrong, just an overture to the opera that's coming...but from then on, you get it from cops, taxi drivers, bell boys, delicatessen dealers..."
"This country does not take violence against women seriously enough Thousands of men are protected by friends and family who turn a blind eye to their abusive behaviour NICK TIMOTHY"
Cressida Dick was a completely bizarre choice for the Met. Her career should have ended in ignominy after the killing of de Menezes and the appalling lies that were told to justify that. But, having slept on it, I don't think her career will be ended by this. Cops have been wildly inconsistent in enforcing the law around protest and this was stupid, heavy handed and unnecessary. But no one died and the law was enforced. Whatever the "optics" the cops did their job.
If people want the police not to enforce stupid laws they should not allow politicians to pass them.
It looks to me as though the Met have been ruthlessly consistent over the last few months. As you say, the politicians are responsible for the law.
That’s quite a lot. If only a fraction of them now catch Covid and 1% of them die, it means several more deaths and multiples of that in hospital. And that’s just one week’s pause in a very small country. This stuff matters.
Goodnight PB
And the AZ panic continues to spread through Europe. The latest copycat suspension has now come, in the Netherlands, which has followed Ireland in screaming and passing the buck to the European Medicines Agency, which IIRC has already previously insisted that the vaccine is safe.
The Dutch authorities have blocked its use for at least a fortnight, and 43,000 pre-existing appointments have been cancelled.
Even if any of the reported blood disorders could be ascribed to the vp vaccine (and it is very likely indeed that they can’t), delays on such scale, with the current rates of infection in Europe, will directly cause a larger number of death from Covid.
The precise numbers would take a bit of crunching, but it ought to be obvious to every one of those regulators, who are used to dealing with medical statistics.
Quite. I think there are serious questions to be asked in this case of these regulators, as to whether these suspensions are being motivated by any real concern for public health, or if it's all a product of peer pressure and/or covering their own arses in the theoretical scenario of any kind of problem being found.
It looks very much like a domino effect is now happening, with each of these reports of a blood clotting incident, any unexplained death following vaccination, and every suspension by a regulator increasing the pressure on all the remaining countries that are still using AZ to follow suit. It can't be doing any good at all for the hesitancy problem, either.
And, in the end, all the delays are likely to achieve is longer lockdowns and more deaths. As I said in a previous thread, it's like the rest of Europe has developed this urge to punch itself in the face over and over again, and is finding it increasingly hard to resist.
First anti-vaccine EU politicians, and now anti-vaccine medical regulators.
All things considered, could the EU have acted in a more damaging way over vaccines?
The funny thing is the EMA approved the Oxford/AZN vaccine in full for all ages and have not recommended a stop to it.
The national agencies are overriding the EMA here.
Which can be read as political considerations overriding scientific considerations.
As to the why we haven't stopped in this country - it is my understanding that the data from the vaccine rollout here is being examined as it comes in, rather than waiting on reports second hand.
So they have a huge data set, growing all the time, which they are actively looking at. So checking that blood clots aren't statistically excessive has already been done.
As an interesting side point it is worth considering for the moment the public reaction if the AZ roll out was paused in UK for the rest of the month.
I think Brits who were having appointments cancelled would go absolutely ballistic. The CRG would be giving Johnson hell within hours.
We seem to have absorbed being early adopters of the "the jab" into our national psyche. Any possible risk has been judged tiny - and even then, worth it.
The AZ debacle calls into question not the vaccine (the facts will eventually sort that out) but the EU's beloved precautionary principle itself. What kind of principle is it that can kill your people while you burnish your halo, EU?
I agree that the pause will kill people and is completely wrong. But you're mistaken to drag EU regulation into it. The EU regulators approve the use of AZ. It's national regulators exercising the right to override the EU that are causing the issue. If you really wanted to use the case to talk about the EU, it would be an example of a need for less national sovereignty and more central power for the EU. But that would be silly too - the reality is simply that there are over 100 national regulators in the world and some (inside and outside the EU) are being exaggeratedly cautious.
More generally, not everything is about everything else. Some things have nothing to do with Brexit.
The other issue is that in quite a few countries the regulators of various things are not independent.
I am reminded of the response from the Italian air safety regulator to a scientific report prepared by Farnborough on an airplane crash. This proved that a bomb had bought the plane in question down. The feedback from the Italian regulator was that the report was unusable, since it did not support the position of the Italian government.
Not disputing the point, but haven't you got this mixed up? (it may be a different case). There was an aircrash where the Italians were insistent that a plane was brought down by an (American) missile, but external investigators proved that it was an internal issue with the plane (some sort of build up of gas causing and explosion or something).
No - that was the case.
The Italian government had taken the position it was a missile and blamed the Americans. The Italian air safety organisation asked Farnborough to do a report. Farnborough did a report - including live testing - which proved it was very likely a bomb in the rear toilet. IIRC explosive residue, location of the explosion and the lack of fragments. It also, conclusively, ruled out a missile.
The Italian regulator rejected it on the grounds it was politically unusable.
As someone who occasionally used to vote Lib Dem after watching Ed Davey this morning there is negligible chance while he is leader.His answers were so shallow and opportunistic. What i used to like about some previous Lib Dem leaders was their integrity i.e Paddy Ashdown,Charlie Kennedy,Vince Cable and Menzies Campbell in answering questions.One can argue about Nick Clegg either way but at least he could present himself as a likeable decent person. George Orwell once wrote 'after 40 every person has the face they deserve'.Visually Ed Davey looks a nasty piece of work as does nowadays Nicola Sturgeon .One can see that Nicola's face has changed since she has been in power.
What kind of face does Ed Davey have?
He looks as though he has been masticating on a tough and gristly piece of pork for fifteen years.
That’s quite a lot. If only a fraction of them now catch Covid and 1% of them die, it means several more deaths and multiples of that in hospital. And that’s just one week’s pause in a very small country. This stuff matters.
Goodnight PB
And the AZ panic continues to spread through Europe. The latest copycat suspension has now come, in the Netherlands, which has followed Ireland in screaming and passing the buck to the European Medicines Agency, which IIRC has already previously insisted that the vaccine is safe.
The Dutch authorities have blocked its use for at least a fortnight, and 43,000 pre-existing appointments have been cancelled.
Even if any of the reported blood disorders could be ascribed to the vp vaccine (and it is very likely indeed that they can’t), delays on such scale, with the current rates of infection in Europe, will directly cause a larger number of death from Covid.
The precise numbers would take a bit of crunching, but it ought to be obvious to every one of those regulators, who are used to dealing with medical statistics.
Quite. I think there are serious questions to be asked in this case of these regulators, as to whether these suspensions are being motivated by any real concern for public health, or if it's all a product of peer pressure and/or covering their own arses in the theoretical scenario of any kind of problem being found.
It looks very much like a domino effect is now happening, with each of these reports of a blood clotting incident, any unexplained death following vaccination, and every suspension by a regulator increasing the pressure on all the remaining countries that are still using AZ to follow suit. It can't be doing any good at all for the hesitancy problem, either.
And, in the end, all the delays are likely to achieve is longer lockdowns and more deaths. As I said in a previous thread, it's like the rest of Europe has developed this urge to punch itself in the face over and over again, and is finding it increasingly hard to resist.
First anti-vaccine EU politicians, and now anti-vaccine medical regulators.
All things considered, could the EU have acted in a more damaging way over vaccines?
The funny thing is the EMA approved the Oxford/AZN vaccine in full for all ages and have not recommended a stop to it.
The national agencies are overriding the EMA here.
Which can be read as political considerations overriding scientific considerations.
As to the why we haven't stopped in this country - it is my understanding that the data from the vaccine rollout here is being examined as it comes in, rather than waiting on reports second hand.
So they have a huge data set, growing all the time, which they are actively looking at. So checking that blood clots aren't statistically excessive has already been done.
As an interesting side point it is worth considering for the moment the public reaction if the AZ roll out was paused in UK for the rest of the month.
I think Brits who were having appointments cancelled would go absolutely ballistic. The CRG would be giving Johnson hell within hours.
Yes. It is another success from having such a joined up effort. Rather than waiting x weeks between reports of side effects and looking at the data....
The AZ debacle calls into question not the vaccine (the facts will eventually sort that out) but the EU's beloved precautionary principle itself. What kind of principle is it that can kill your people while you burnish your halo, EU?
I agree that the pause will kill people and is completely wrong. But you're mistaken to drag EU regulation into it. The EU regulators approve the use of AZ. It's national regulators exercising the right to override the EU that are causing the issue. If you really wanted to use the case to talk about the EU, it would be an example of a need for less national sovereignty and more central power for the EU. But that would be silly too - the reality is simply that there are over 100 national regulators in the world and some (inside and outside the EU) are being exaggeratedly cautious.
More generally, not everything is about everything else. Some things have nothing to do with Brexit.
The other issue is that in quite a few countries the regulators of various things are not independent.
I am reminded of the response from the Italian air safety regulator to a scientific report prepared by Farnborough on an airplane crash. This proved that a bomb had bought the plane in question down. The feedback from the Italian regulator was that the report was unusable, since it did not support the position of the Italian government.
Not disputing the point, but haven't you got this mixed up? (it may be a different case). There was an aircrash where the Italians were insistent that a plane was brought down by an (American) missile, but external investigators proved that it was an internal issue with the plane (some sort of build up of gas causing and explosion or something).
No - that was the case.
The Italian government had taken the position it was a missile and blamed the Americans. The Italian air safety organisation asked Farnborough to do a report. Farnborough did a report - including live testing - which proved it was very likely a bomb in the rear toilet. IIRC explosive residue, location of the explosion and the lack of fragments. It also, conclusively, ruled out a missile.
The Italian regulator rejected it on the grounds it was politically unusable.
Thanks - i'd misremembered re: the bomb, now i've looked it up on wiki. The additional political point being that if it was a bomb it was quite possibly domestic terrorism, or at least politically difficult for the Italian Govt (eg. part of a bombing campaign linked to some Italian govt actions).
George Orwell once wrote 'after 40 every person has the face they deserve'.Visually Ed Davey looks a nasty piece of work as does nowadays Nicola Sturgeon .One can see that Nicola's face has changed since she has been in power.
I didn't change that much until I hit 50. Now I look fucking haggard especially since I abandoned the beard.
There are 3,000 blood clots a month in general UK population says JVCI member.
Yes, but the concern has arisen from two clusters, one in Norway and one in Austria, the Norwegian one at least consisting mostly of younger people. Including two deaths the day after vaccination. This is medically unusual and you can't blame regulators for wanting to investigate.
War memorials are very emotive for some. If it’s your family members who gave their lives for the country, and so ignorant twunk vandalisizes it, you can get pretty damn emotional.
Emotion is a great driver of good laws as everyone knows.
As someone who occasionally used to vote Lib Dem after watching Ed Davey this morning there is negligible chance while he is leader.His answers were so shallow and opportunistic. What i used to like about some previous Lib Dem leaders was their integrity i.e Paddy Ashdown,Charlie Kennedy,Vince Cable and Menzies Campbell in answering questions.One can argue about Nick Clegg either way but at least he could present himself as a likeable decent person. George Orwell once wrote 'after 40 every person has the face they deserve'.Visually Ed Davey looks a nasty piece of work as does nowadays Nicola Sturgeon .One can see that Nicola's face has changed since she has been in power.
Cressida Dick was a completely bizarre choice for the Met. Her career should have ended in ignominy after the killing of de Menezes and the appalling lies that were told to justify that. But, having slept on it, I don't think her career will be ended by this. Cops have been wildly inconsistent in enforcing the law around protest and this was stupid, heavy handed and unnecessary. But no one died and the law was enforced. Whatever the "optics" the cops did their job.
If people want the police not to enforce stupid laws they should not allow politicians to pass them.
Except the Court already ruled protests are not necessarily illegal and the response by the Police needs to be proportional. That didn't happen.
The Police should enforce the law as is, not the law as they want. They don't have a blank cheque.
The Police should have the option of applying common sense.
Your analysis of how the UK should be policed follows the East German Stasi model.
Wait what?
I think you misunderstood what I wrote.
Being proportional and using common sense, as the Court had already ruled, is exactly what I wanted. Not Stasi enforcement.
The AZ debacle calls into question not the vaccine (the facts will eventually sort that out) but the EU's beloved precautionary principle itself. What kind of principle is it that can kill your people while you burnish your halo, EU?
I agree that the pause will kill people and is completely wrong. But you're mistaken to drag EU regulation into it. The EU regulators approve the use of AZ. It's national regulators exercising the right to override the EU that are causing the issue. If you really wanted to use the case to talk about the EU, it would be an example of a need for less national sovereignty and more central power for the EU. But that would be silly too - the reality is simply that there are over 100 national regulators in the world and some (inside and outside the EU) are being exaggeratedly cautious.
More generally, not everything is about everything else. Some things have nothing to do with Brexit.
The other issue is that in quite a few countries the regulators of various things are not independent.
I am reminded of the response from the Italian air safety regulator to a scientific report prepared by Farnborough on an airplane crash. This proved that a bomb had bought the plane in question down. The feedback from the Italian regulator was that the report was unusable, since it did not support the position of the Italian government.
Not disputing the point, but haven't you got this mixed up? (it may be a different case). There was an aircrash where the Italians were insistent that a plane was brought down by an (American) missile, but external investigators proved that it was an internal issue with the plane (some sort of build up of gas causing and explosion or something).
No - that was the case.
The Italian government had taken the position it was a missile and blamed the Americans. The Italian air safety organisation asked Farnborough to do a report. Farnborough did a report - including live testing - which proved it was very likely a bomb in the rear toilet. IIRC explosive residue, location of the explosion and the lack of fragments. It also, conclusively, ruled out a missile.
The Italian regulator rejected it on the grounds it was politically unusable.
Thanks - i'd misremembered re: the bomb, now i've looked it up on wiki. The additional political point being that if it was a bomb it was quite possibly domestic terrorism, or at least politically difficult for the Italian Govt (eg. part of a bombing campaign linked to some Italian govt actions).
Not to mention the possibility that the bomb was liked to the Italian government rather more directly.
As someone who occasionally used to vote Lib Dem after watching Ed Davey this morning there is negligible chance while he is leader.His answers were so shallow and opportunistic. What i used to like about some previous Lib Dem leaders was their integrity i.e Paddy Ashdown,Charlie Kennedy,Vince Cable and Menzies Campbell in answering questions.One can argue about Nick Clegg either way but at least he could present himself as a likeable decent person. George Orwell once wrote 'after 40 every person has the face they deserve'.Visually Ed Davey looks a nasty piece of work as does nowadays Nicola Sturgeon .One can see that Nicola's face has changed since she has been in power.
What kind of face does Ed Davey have?
He looks as though he has been masticating on a tough and gristly piece of pork for fifteen years.
The sort of discussion that, were it about a female politician, would be getting you into trouble right now.
George Orwell once wrote 'after 40 every person has the face they deserve'.Visually Ed Davey looks a nasty piece of work as does nowadays Nicola Sturgeon .One can see that Nicola's face has changed since she has been in power.
I didn't change that much until I hit 50. Now I look fucking haggard especially since I abandoned the beard.
George Orwell once wrote 'after 40 every person has the face they deserve'.Visually Ed Davey looks a nasty piece of work as does nowadays Nicola Sturgeon .One can see that Nicola's face has changed since she has been in power.
I didn't change that much until I hit 50. Now I look fucking haggard especially since I abandoned the beard.
Drugs, overstressing your body cycling, driving like a maniac, craving Maoist revolutions, vegan diet..
It is hardly surprising that the ever sp woke BBC is surprised when their view of the world is not the same as the population at large.... ALSO...Twitter is no the conscience of the nation.
Funnily enough Radio 5 this morning mentioned the difference in the responses between their actual listeners (on the side of the police broadly) and that of social media.
Cressida Dick was a completely bizarre choice for the Met. Her career should have ended in ignominy after the killing of de Menezes and the appalling lies that were told to justify that. But, having slept on it, I don't think her career will be ended by this. Cops have been wildly inconsistent in enforcing the law around protest and this was stupid, heavy handed and unnecessary. But no one died and the law was enforced. Whatever the "optics" the cops did their job.
If people want the police not to enforce stupid laws they should not allow politicians to pass them.
It looks to me as though the Met have been ruthlessly consistent over the last few months. As you say, the politicians are responsible for the law.
BLM? Extinction Rebellion? I really don't agree.
Before the law change. As was pointed out earlier, those women ought to count themselves grateful for not getting a £10,000 fine. The police have been handing those out like confetti for months.
Cressida Dick was a completely bizarre choice for the Met. Her career should have ended in ignominy after the killing of de Menezes and the appalling lies that were told to justify that. But, having slept on it, I don't think her career will be ended by this. Cops have been wildly inconsistent in enforcing the law around protest and this was stupid, heavy handed and unnecessary. But no one died and the law was enforced. Whatever the "optics" the cops did their job.
If people want the police not to enforce stupid laws they should not allow politicians to pass them.
Except the Court already ruled protests are not necessarily illegal and the response by the Police needs to be proportional. That didn't happen.
The Police should enforce the law as is, not the law as they want. They don't have a blank cheque.
The Police should have the option of applying common sense.
Your analysis of how the UK should be policed follows the East German Stasi model.
Wait what?
I think you misunderstood what I wrote.
Being proportional and using common sense, as the Court had already ruled, is exactly what I wanted. Not Stasi enforcement.
OK, I took your second paragraph to be they need to follow the letter of the law. My mistake.
I am not sure Ed Davey, who I like, hasn't just shot from the hip here for a quick headline. Which indeed, he has achieved.
Cressida Dick was a completely bizarre choice for the Met. Her career should have ended in ignominy after the killing of de Menezes and the appalling lies that were told to justify that. But, having slept on it, I don't think her career will be ended by this. Cops have been wildly inconsistent in enforcing the law around protest and this was stupid, heavy handed and unnecessary. But no one died and the law was enforced. Whatever the "optics" the cops did their job.
If people want the police not to enforce stupid laws they should not allow politicians to pass them.
It looks to me as though the Met have been ruthlessly consistent over the last few months. As you say, the politicians are responsible for the law.
BLM? Extinction Rebellion? I really don't agree.
Before the law change. As was pointed out earlier, those women ought to count themselves grateful for not getting a £10,000 fine. The police have been handing those out like confetti for months.
Who exactly was the organiser? That's your £10,000.
It is hardly surprising that the ever sp woke BBC is surprised when their view of the world is not the same as the population at large.... ALSO...Twitter is no the conscience of the nation.
Probably surprised to find the population at large disagreeing when the BBC and the Mail are at one though...
BBC has completely lost the plot. We never watch their news and record everything to avoid incessant trailers and adverts on other stations. An hournorogeamne is about 42 minutes if you exclude all tge crap.. God alone know what watching TV in America must be like...almost unwatchable live
I note the BBC now has voicovers that cannot pronounce the the word three and say Free..
Good piece. Although he says a lot of people who had the "dummy" vaccine during the trial reported side effects. I may be misremembering, but wasn't the dummy in the trial actually another vaccine not just sugered water?
Not like this, but a memorable experience as a young Conservative aged 19-20 years old was the lecherous behaviour of several homosexual Tory MPs, PPCs, and their friends. Some were in the closet, and some not, but you always knew when that was why they were interested in you - rather than what you had to say - and that was exceedingly uncomfortable.
It wasn't criminal, it wasn't assault, it was just obvious, uncomfortable and unwelcoming. It was probably the closest I came to a 'female' experience because you can easily tell when someone's checking you out (their eyes quickly scan up and down your body) or they dwell them for slightly too look on your arse, as opposed to your chest (I presume) if you're female.
Admittedly, I didn't have *that* much to say at 19, but I was very interested in politics and I was trying to find a experienced politician I could discuss things with and learn from, and you didn't feel you could complain about it much because you feared it would cut you off the opportunity to network and build a political career.
Cressida Dick was a completely bizarre choice for the Met. Her career should have ended in ignominy after the killing of de Menezes and the appalling lies that were told to justify that. But, having slept on it, I don't think her career will be ended by this. Cops have been wildly inconsistent in enforcing the law around protest and this was stupid, heavy handed and unnecessary. But no one died and the law was enforced. Whatever the "optics" the cops did their job.
If people want the police not to enforce stupid laws they should not allow politicians to pass them.
It looks to me as though the Met have been ruthlessly consistent over the last few months. As you say, the politicians are responsible for the law.
BLM? Extinction Rebellion? I really don't agree.
Before the law change. As was pointed out earlier, those women ought to count themselves grateful for not getting a £10,000 fine. The police have been handing those out like confetti for months.
I wonder if anyone has been daft enough to pay one yet. Doubt it.
But I come back to my original point. If politicians want the law to be applied "reasonably" and want the police to be able to exercise discretion based on an assessment of the actual risk then they have to write the laws that way. They don't want to because that requires thought, talking through the messy compromises and complicating the message. So they dump the problem on the police and the courts and then complain about the results. It's unimpressive.
George Orwell once wrote 'after 40 every person has the face they deserve'.Visually Ed Davey looks a nasty piece of work as does nowadays Nicola Sturgeon .One can see that Nicola's face has changed since she has been in power.
I didn't change that much until I hit 50. Now I look fucking haggard especially since I abandoned the beard.
Did he suggest one gets another chance after 80. Kindly old gentleman, sort of Santa like, perhaps? Although I haven't got a white beard. Shock of white hair, yes.
Good piece. Although he says a lot of people who had the "dummy" vaccine during the trial reported side effects. I may be misremembering, but wasn't the dummy in the trial actually another vaccine not just sugered water?
In the UK arm it was meningococcal vaccine. Saline in some of the others.
Another vaccine is a poor placebo, as any vaccine stimulates the immune system modestly, reducing the demonstrated effectiveness of the trial vaccine.
George Orwell once wrote 'after 40 every person has the face they deserve'.Visually Ed Davey looks a nasty piece of work as does nowadays Nicola Sturgeon .One can see that Nicola's face has changed since she has been in power.
I didn't change that much until I hit 50. Now I look fucking haggard especially since I abandoned the beard.
Did he suggest one gets another chance after 80. Kindly old gentleman, sort of Santa like, perhaps? Although I haven't got a white beard. Shock of white hair, yes.
George Orwell never got the chance, and was no adonis himself after 40!
It is hardly surprising that the ever sp woke BBC is surprised when their view of the world is not the same as the population at large.... ALSO...Twitter is no the conscience of the nation.
Funnily enough Radio 5 this morning mentioned the difference in the responses between their actual listeners (on the side of the police broadly) and that of social media.
Yes.
I reported the response to Nicky Campbell and Rachel Burden's interview on 5 live of an attendee at the virgil was overwhelmingly in support of the police, with the common response questioning why people had attended an illegal gathering
They did say the responses from listeners was not that of twitter but it should be noted that the vast majority of polls support covid safe measures
The AZ debacle calls into question not the vaccine (the facts will eventually sort that out) but the EU's beloved precautionary principle itself. What kind of principle is it that can kill your people while you burnish your halo, EU?
I agree that the pause will kill people and is completely wrong. But you're mistaken to drag EU regulation into it. The EU regulators approve the use of AZ. It's national regulators exercising the right to override the EU that are causing the issue. If you really wanted to use the case to talk about the EU, it would be an example of a need for less national sovereignty and more central power for the EU. But that would be silly too - the reality is simply that there are over 100 national regulators in the world and some (inside and outside the EU) are being exaggeratedly cautious.
More generally, not everything is about everything else. Some things have nothing to do with Brexit.
Sorry, but I did not mention EU regulation, nor Brexit.
Good piece. Although he says a lot of people who had the "dummy" vaccine during the trial reported side effects. I may be misremembering, but wasn't the dummy in the trial actually another vaccine not just sugered water?
In the UK arm it was meningococcal vaccine. Saline in some of the others.
Another vaccine is a poor placebo, as any vaccine stimulates the immune system modestly, reducing the demonstrated effectiveness of the trial vaccine.
I thought that the dummy arm of a clinical trial was always just that.
The AZ debacle calls into question not the vaccine (the facts will eventually sort that out) but the EU's beloved precautionary principle itself. What kind of principle is it that can kill your people while you burnish your halo, EU?
I agree that the pause will kill people and is completely wrong. But you're mistaken to drag EU regulation into it. The EU regulators approve the use of AZ. It's national regulators exercising the right to override the EU that are causing the issue. If you really wanted to use the case to talk about the EU, it would be an example of a need for less national sovereignty and more central power for the EU. But that would be silly too - the reality is simply that there are over 100 national regulators in the world and some (inside and outside the EU) are being exaggeratedly cautious.
More generally, not everything is about everything else. Some things have nothing to do with Brexit.
A perceptive pair of comments.
The Precautionary Principle is now a rhetorical construct used when an evidenced-based case cannot be made, but where irrational doubt needs to be made to sound respectable. That is a Green (and green) speciality.
@NickPalmer , I think the EU process is more than over-cautionary reactions.
UVDL and other know that at some time someone is going to be held responsible for the EU Citizens who are ill or die between the date when the EU could have had widespread vaccination, and the date when it actually was in place. *
And I think that is why they have been running blame-somebody-else narratives, starting with lying about the content of the AZ contract before it was published.
There are aleady people such as Pete Liese MEP running similar narratives around J&J.
(* Currently this number is somewhat under 100k dead EU Citizens.)
As someone who occasionally used to vote Lib Dem after watching Ed Davey this morning there is negligible chance while he is leader.His answers were so shallow and opportunistic. What i used to like about some previous Lib Dem leaders was their integrity i.e Paddy Ashdown,Charlie Kennedy,Vince Cable and Menzies Campbell in answering questions.One can argue about Nick Clegg either way but at least he could present himself as a likeable decent person. George Orwell once wrote 'after 40 every person has the face they deserve'.Visually Ed Davey looks a nasty piece of work as does nowadays Nicola Sturgeon .One can see that Nicola's face has changed since she has been in power.
That last para is (I hope) beneath you.
Do you really judge people by what they look like to that extent?
That's one up from regarding people in wheelchairs as subhuman because they are different.
George Orwell once wrote 'after 40 every person has the face they deserve'.Visually Ed Davey looks a nasty piece of work as does nowadays Nicola Sturgeon .One can see that Nicola's face has changed since she has been in power.
I didn't change that much until I hit 50. Now I look fucking haggard especially since I abandoned the beard.
Did he suggest one gets another chance after 80. Kindly old gentleman, sort of Santa like, perhaps? Although I haven't got a white beard. Shock of white hair, yes.
George Orwell never got the chance, and was no adonis himself after 40!
The AZ debacle calls into question not the vaccine (the facts will eventually sort that out) but the EU's beloved precautionary principle itself. What kind of principle is it that can kill your people while you burnish your halo, EU?
I agree that the pause will kill people and is completely wrong. But you're mistaken to drag EU regulation into it. The EU regulators approve the use of AZ. It's national regulators exercising the right to override the EU that are causing the issue. If you really wanted to use the case to talk about the EU, it would be an example of a need for less national sovereignty and more central power for the EU. But that would be silly too - the reality is simply that there are over 100 national regulators in the world and some (inside and outside the EU) are being exaggeratedly cautious.
More generally, not everything is about everything else. Some things have nothing to do with Brexit.
Sorry, but I did not mention EU regulation, nor Brexit.
Nevertheless you managed to shoehorn 'EU' twice into a comment barely above twenty words total, when the AZN has been paused also in Norway, Thailand and Iceland, and all these decisions are being taken by national medical regulators.
That’s quite a lot. If only a fraction of them now catch Covid and 1% of them die, it means several more deaths and multiples of that in hospital. And that’s just one week’s pause in a very small country. This stuff matters.
Goodnight PB
And the AZ panic continues to spread through Europe. The latest copycat suspension has now come, in the Netherlands, which has followed Ireland in screaming and passing the buck to the European Medicines Agency, which IIRC has already previously insisted that the vaccine is safe.
The Dutch authorities have blocked its use for at least a fortnight, and 43,000 pre-existing appointments have been cancelled.
Even if any of the reported blood disorders could be ascribed to the vp vaccine (and it is very likely indeed that they can’t), delays on such scale, with the current rates of infection in Europe, will directly cause a larger number of death from Covid.
The precise numbers would take a bit of crunching, but it ought to be obvious to every one of those regulators, who are used to dealing with medical statistics.
Quite. I think there are serious questions to be asked in this case of these regulators, as to whether these suspensions are being motivated by any real concern for public health, or if it's all a product of peer pressure and/or covering their own arses in the theoretical scenario of any kind of problem being found.
It looks very much like a domino effect is now happening, with each of these reports of a blood clotting incident, any unexplained death following vaccination, and every suspension by a regulator increasing the pressure on all the remaining countries that are still using AZ to follow suit. It can't be doing any good at all for the hesitancy problem, either.
And, in the end, all the delays are likely to achieve is longer lockdowns and more deaths. As I said in a previous thread, it's like the rest of Europe has developed this urge to punch itself in the face over and over again, and is finding it increasingly hard to resist.
Who is actually making these decisions, it doesn't seem clear?
I think part of the problem is that people demand that things are 100% safe and 100% effective, and authorities pander to this impossible childish demand, rather than just being honest from the start and treating people like adults saying:
"There is no such thing as 100% safe, every medical procedure has some kind of risk" and then put that risk into some kind of perspective by comparing it with other things most people do every day.
Then they don't have to overreact to the inevitable clusters that are bound to happen when vaccinating millions of people, they can just say of course they are investigating everything while continuing to save lives by vaccinating as fast as possible.
If there's any truth in the idea that some countries are using this as an excuse for cancelling appointments rather than just saying there's a supply problem, it's doubly silly.
A supply problem makes people more keen to get jabbed. Rubbishing one vaccine raises doubts about all of them.
"the idea that some countries are using this as an excuse for cancelling appointments rather than just saying there's a supply problem"
is a pretty wild idea, any evidence to support such an extraordinary claim?
Cressida Dick was a completely bizarre choice for the Met. Her career should have ended in ignominy after the killing of de Menezes and the appalling lies that were told to justify that. But, having slept on it, I don't think her career will be ended by this. Cops have been wildly inconsistent in enforcing the law around protest and this was stupid, heavy handed and unnecessary. But no one died and the law was enforced. Whatever the "optics" the cops did their job.
If people want the police not to enforce stupid laws they should not allow politicians to pass them.
Except the Court already ruled protests are not necessarily illegal and the response by the Police needs to be proportional. That didn't happen.
The Police should enforce the law as is, not the law as they want. They don't have a blank cheque.
The Police should have the option of applying common sense.
Your analysis of how the UK should be policed follows the East German Stasi model.
Wait what?
I think you misunderstood what I wrote.
Being proportional and using common sense, as the Court had already ruled, is exactly what I wanted. Not Stasi enforcement.
OK, I took your second paragraph to be they need to follow the letter of the law. My mistake.
I am not sure Ed Davey, who I like, hasn't just shot from the hip here for a quick headline. Which indeed, he has achieved.
Ah no, I was saying the polar opposite. The Courts ruled already responses need to be proportional, as they should.
The problem is the Police always want more powers, more draconian. A liberal society needs to stand up to the Police, as well as supporting them to do their jobs.
Apparently the Dutch have cancelled 43,000 appointments due to the pause on AstraZeneca. Crazy.
That is lost lives, right there
Precautionary Principle Arithmetic The vaccine either causes the thrombolitic events recorded or it does not (put aside for the moment the fact that the rate of them is no higher in the vaccinated)
IF it turned out that the vaccine did cause the thrombolitic events, then the one fatality out of the 10 million people dosed would, in fact, have been caused by the vaccine and the death rate is one in ten million. The above is what they are concerned about and why they are pausing to assess.
The IFR of covid across all populations is very close to 0.7% (one in 140). The rate of infection of those turned away would have to be below one in 70,000 in the period of suspension, otherwise the death rate caused by the suspension would automatically be greater than if no suspension occurred (AND, contrary to all the evidence, it DID end up causing the death).
(Also NB - there was a single death from the same cause in the 10 million Pfizer-jabbed as well)
The suspension can ONLY be justifiable if and only if the daily case rate in the countries in question is below 0.2 per 100,000 people.
Both Netherlands and Ireland have confirmed daily case rates (and they test far less than us, so they are picking up a smaller proportion of actual infections) far far higher than that (10 per 100,000 for Ireland, reflecting a probably 30-80 per 100,000 actual infections; 31 per 100,000 for the Netherlands, reflecting a probably 100-300 per 100,000 actual infections).
Conclusion: the countries in question are causing unnecessary deaths to the tune of 200-1000 times as many people as the precaution could possibly save.
Sky reporting that one of Sarah Everard's friends has written a piece saying that Sarah would have been unsettled at how her death has been politicised and hijacked and that it is not a tribute to her anymore
The AZ debacle calls into question not the vaccine (the facts will eventually sort that out) but the EU's beloved precautionary principle itself. What kind of principle is it that can kill your people while you burnish your halo, EU?
I agree that the pause will kill people and is completely wrong. But you're mistaken to drag EU regulation into it. The EU regulators approve the use of AZ. It's national regulators exercising the right to override the EU that are causing the issue. If you really wanted to use the case to talk about the EU, it would be an example of a need for less national sovereignty and more central power for the EU. But that would be silly too - the reality is simply that there are over 100 national regulators in the world and some (inside and outside the EU) are being exaggeratedly cautious.
More generally, not everything is about everything else. Some things have nothing to do with Brexit.
Sorry, but I did not mention EU regulation, nor Brexit.
Nevertheless you managed to shoehorn 'EU' twice into a comment barely above twenty words total, when the AZN has been paused also in Norway, Thailand and Iceland, and all these decisions are being taken by national medical regulators.
The EU are the main proselytizers of the precautionary principle.
The AZ debacle calls into question not the vaccine (the facts will eventually sort that out) but the EU's beloved precautionary principle itself. What kind of principle is it that can kill your people while you burnish your halo, EU?
I agree that the pause will kill people and is completely wrong. But you're mistaken to drag EU regulation into it. The EU regulators approve the use of AZ. It's national regulators exercising the right to override the EU that are causing the issue. If you really wanted to use the case to talk about the EU, it would be an example of a need for less national sovereignty and more central power for the EU. But that would be silly too - the reality is simply that there are over 100 national regulators in the world and some (inside and outside the EU) are being exaggeratedly cautious.
More generally, not everything is about everything else. Some things have nothing to do with Brexit.
Sorry, but I did not mention EU regulation, nor Brexit.
Nevertheless you managed to shoehorn 'EU' twice into a comment barely above twenty words total, when the AZN has been paused also in Norway, Thailand and Iceland, and all these decisions are being taken by national medical regulators.
If covid levels are very low in your country, a week's pause for investigation might be appropriate, and I see @Andy_Cooke has crunched the numbers. Thailand might just about be justified in the pause - and probably not even then, other countries are not.
Apparently the Dutch have cancelled 43,000 appointments due to the pause on AstraZeneca. Crazy.
That is lost lives, right there
Precautionary Principle Arithmetic The vaccine either causes the thrombolitic events recorded or it does not (put aside for the moment the fact that the rate of them is no higher in the vaccinated)
IF it turned out that the vaccine did cause the thrombolitic events, then the one fatality out of the 10 million people dosed would, in fact, have been caused by the vaccine and the death rate is one in ten million. The above is what they are concerned about and why they are pausing to assess.
The IFR of covid across all populations is very close to 0.7% (one in 140). The rate of infection of those turned away would have to be below one in 70,000 in the period of suspension, otherwise the death rate caused by the suspension would automatically be greater than if no suspension occurred (AND, contrary to all the evidence, it DID end up causing the death).
(Also NB - there was a single death from the same cause in the 10 million Pfizer-jabbed as well)
The suspension can ONLY be justifiable if and only if the daily case rate in the countries in question is below 0.2 per 100,000 people.
Both Netherlands and Ireland have confirmed daily case rates (and they test far less than us, so they are picking up a smaller proportion of actual infections) far far higher than that (10 per 100,000 for Ireland, reflecting a probably 30-80 per 100,000 actual infections; 31 per 100,000 for the Netherlands, reflecting a probably 100-300 per 100,000 actual infections).
Conclusion: the countries in question are causing unnecessary deaths to the tune of 200-1000 times as many people as the precaution could possibly save.
It's baffling. Surely these countries have statistical experts they could consult.
Apparently the Dutch have cancelled 43,000 appointments due to the pause on AstraZeneca. Crazy.
That is lost lives, right there
Precautionary Principle Arithmetic The vaccine either causes the thrombolitic events recorded or it does not (put aside for the moment the fact that the rate of them is no higher in the vaccinated)
IF it turned out that the vaccine did cause the thrombolitic events, then the one fatality out of the 10 million people dosed would, in fact, have been caused by the vaccine and the death rate is one in ten million. The above is what they are concerned about and why they are pausing to assess.
The IFR of covid across all populations is very close to 0.7% (one in 140). The rate of infection of those turned away would have to be below one in 70,000 in the period of suspension, otherwise the death rate caused by the suspension would automatically be greater than if no suspension occurred (AND, contrary to all the evidence, it DID end up causing the death).
(Also NB - there was a single death from the same cause in the 10 million Pfizer-jabbed as well)
The suspension can ONLY be justifiable if and only if the daily case rate in the countries in question is below 0.2 per 100,000 people.
Both Netherlands and Ireland have confirmed daily case rates (and they test far less than us, so they are picking up a smaller proportion of actual infections) far far higher than that (10 per 100,000 for Ireland, reflecting a probably 30-80 per 100,000 actual infections; 31 per 100,000 for the Netherlands, reflecting a probably 100-300 per 100,000 actual infections).
Conclusion: the countries in question are causing unnecessary deaths to the tune of 200-1000 times as many people as the precaution could possibly save.
I am completely with you on the absurdity of this but are you not working on the basis that those people never get vaccinated? The risk factor is really that they are not vaccinated for another couple of weeks so you would need to look at the risk that those affected catch the disease and then die within that timescale.
It's something I have been thinking about in other contexts. It seems that the EU are likely to be somewhere between 3 and 6 months slower than us in universal vaccination. How many additional lives will that actually cost? If you take France they are currently losing between 100-300 a day so the extra deaths of a 3 month delay will be somewhere between 10k and 30k. Somewhat less than the extra we lost in January.
Its still a lot of unnecessary deaths and adding to it is madness but in the overall scheme of the pandemic it seems unlikely to be the most decisive factor in how hard the virus hit particular countries.
Apparently the Dutch have cancelled 43,000 appointments due to the pause on AstraZeneca. Crazy.
That is lost lives, right there
Precautionary Principle Arithmetic The vaccine either causes the thrombolitic events recorded or it does not (put aside for the moment the fact that the rate of them is no higher in the vaccinated)
IF it turned out that the vaccine did cause the thrombolitic events, then the one fatality out of the 10 million people dosed would, in fact, have been caused by the vaccine and the death rate is one in ten million. The above is what they are concerned about and why they are pausing to assess.
The IFR of covid across all populations is very close to 0.7% (one in 140). The rate of infection of those turned away would have to be below one in 70,000 in the period of suspension, otherwise the death rate caused by the suspension would automatically be greater than if no suspension occurred (AND, contrary to all the evidence, it DID end up causing the death).
(Also NB - there was a single death from the same cause in the 10 million Pfizer-jabbed as well)
The suspension can ONLY be justifiable if and only if the daily case rate in the countries in question is below 0.2 per 100,000 people.
Both Netherlands and Ireland have confirmed daily case rates (and they test far less than us, so they are picking up a smaller proportion of actual infections) far far higher than that (10 per 100,000 for Ireland, reflecting a probably 30-80 per 100,000 actual infections; 31 per 100,000 for the Netherlands, reflecting a probably 100-300 per 100,000 actual infections).
Conclusion: the countries in question are causing unnecessary deaths to the tune of 200-1000 times as many people as the precaution could possibly save.
Don't expect the Handelsblatt Media Group to be running those numbers any time soon.
Good piece. Although he says a lot of people who had the "dummy" vaccine during the trial reported side effects. I may be misremembering, but wasn't the dummy in the trial actually another vaccine not just sugered water?
In the UK arm it was meningococcal vaccine. Saline in some of the others.
Another vaccine is a poor placebo, as any vaccine stimulates the immune system modestly, reducing the demonstrated effectiveness of the trial vaccine.
I thought that the dummy arm of a clinical trial was always just that.
"Normally an experimental drug would be compared against a dummy – saline, salty water, generally.
But the scientists knew that the vaccine had the potential to cause low-grade side effects – fevers, headaches and sore arms.
They needed to compare it against another vaccine with a similar profile of side effects so they could spot anything out of the ordinary."
I've googled him and it turns out that the Ed Davey mentioned in the header is apparently the leader of the liberal democrats. It's about time we had a liberal and democratic voice in this country.
Good piece. Although he says a lot of people who had the "dummy" vaccine during the trial reported side effects. I may be misremembering, but wasn't the dummy in the trial actually another vaccine not just sugered water?
IIRC it was the meningitis jab. For a "neutral" placebo they'd use saline solution.
I've googled him and it turns out that the Ed Davey mentioned in the header is apparently the leader of the liberal democrats. It's about time we had a liberal and democratic voice in this country.
Apparently the Dutch have cancelled 43,000 appointments due to the pause on AstraZeneca. Crazy.
That is lost lives, right there
Precautionary Principle Arithmetic The vaccine either causes the thrombolitic events recorded or it does not (put aside for the moment the fact that the rate of them is no higher in the vaccinated)
IF it turned out that the vaccine did cause the thrombolitic events, then the one fatality out of the 10 million people dosed would, in fact, have been caused by the vaccine and the death rate is one in ten million. The above is what they are concerned about and why they are pausing to assess.
The IFR of covid across all populations is very close to 0.7% (one in 140). The rate of infection of those turned away would have to be below one in 70,000 in the period of suspension, otherwise the death rate caused by the suspension would automatically be greater than if no suspension occurred (AND, contrary to all the evidence, it DID end up causing the death).
(Also NB - there was a single death from the same cause in the 10 million Pfizer-jabbed as well)
The suspension can ONLY be justifiable if and only if the daily case rate in the countries in question is below 0.2 per 100,000 people.
Both Netherlands and Ireland have confirmed daily case rates (and they test far less than us, so they are picking up a smaller proportion of actual infections) far far higher than that (10 per 100,000 for Ireland, reflecting a probably 30-80 per 100,000 actual infections; 31 per 100,000 for the Netherlands, reflecting a probably 100-300 per 100,000 actual infections).
Conclusion: the countries in question are causing unnecessary deaths to the tune of 200-1000 times as many people as the precaution could possibly save.
I am completely with you on the absurdity of this but are you not working on the basis that those people never get vaccinated? The risk factor is really that they are not vaccinated for another couple of weeks so you would need to look at the risk that those affected catch the disease and then die within that timescale.
It's something I have been thinking about in other contexts. It seems that the EU are likely to be somewhere between 3 and 6 months slower than us in universal vaccination. How many additional lives will that actually cost? If you take France they are currently losing between 100-300 a day so the extra deaths of a 3 month delay will be somewhere between 10k and 30k. Somewhat less than the extra we lost in January.
Its still a lot of unnecessary deaths and adding to it is madness but in the overall scheme of the pandemic it seems unlikely to be the most decisive factor in how hard the virus hit particular countries.
" If you take France they are currently losing between 100-300 a day so the extra deaths of a 3 month delay will be somewhere between 10k and 30k. Somewhat less than the extra we lost in January."
Would take issue with you use of "extra" we lost in January. There is no suggestion that total was avoidable. Some perhaps. But Covid would have found a way as it has across Europe this winter.
The French numbers WERE avoidable, by vaccinating.
The UK would be a better place if all the ludicrous, ill-written, stupidly authoritarian laws we have created in the last 18 months were immediately struck from the statute.
I've googled him and it turns out that the Ed Davey mentioned in the header is apparently the leader of the liberal democrats. It's about time we had a liberal and democratic voice in this country.
Indeed. Whether Ed is that voice is the question.
Though today has at least confirmed he hasn't had a year-long bout of laryngitis. Which some may have idly wondered about...
Apparently the Dutch have cancelled 43,000 appointments due to the pause on AstraZeneca. Crazy.
That is lost lives, right there
Precautionary Principle Arithmetic The vaccine either causes the thrombolitic events recorded or it does not (put aside for the moment the fact that the rate of them is no higher in the vaccinated)
IF it turned out that the vaccine did cause the thrombolitic events, then the one fatality out of the 10 million people dosed would, in fact, have been caused by the vaccine and the death rate is one in ten million. The above is what they are concerned about and why they are pausing to assess.
The IFR of covid across all populations is very close to 0.7% (one in 140). The rate of infection of those turned away would have to be below one in 70,000 in the period of suspension, otherwise the death rate caused by the suspension would automatically be greater than if no suspension occurred (AND, contrary to all the evidence, it DID end up causing the death).
(Also NB - there was a single death from the same cause in the 10 million Pfizer-jabbed as well)
The suspension can ONLY be justifiable if and only if the daily case rate in the countries in question is below 0.2 per 100,000 people.
Both Netherlands and Ireland have confirmed daily case rates (and they test far less than us, so they are picking up a smaller proportion of actual infections) far far higher than that (10 per 100,000 for Ireland, reflecting a probably 30-80 per 100,000 actual infections; 31 per 100,000 for the Netherlands, reflecting a probably 100-300 per 100,000 actual infections).
Conclusion: the countries in question are causing unnecessary deaths to the tune of 200-1000 times as many people as the precaution could possibly save.
Apparently the Dutch have cancelled 43,000 appointments due to the pause on AstraZeneca. Crazy.
That is lost lives, right there
Precautionary Principle Arithmetic The vaccine either causes the thrombolitic events recorded or it does not (put aside for the moment the fact that the rate of them is no higher in the vaccinated)
IF it turned out that the vaccine did cause the thrombolitic events, then the one fatality out of the 10 million people dosed would, in fact, have been caused by the vaccine and the death rate is one in ten million. The above is what they are concerned about and why they are pausing to assess.
The IFR of covid across all populations is very close to 0.7% (one in 140). The rate of infection of those turned away would have to be below one in 70,000 in the period of suspension, otherwise the death rate caused by the suspension would automatically be greater than if no suspension occurred (AND, contrary to all the evidence, it DID end up causing the death).
(Also NB - there was a single death from the same cause in the 10 million Pfizer-jabbed as well)
The suspension can ONLY be justifiable if and only if the daily case rate in the countries in question is below 0.2 per 100,000 people.
Both Netherlands and Ireland have confirmed daily case rates (and they test far less than us, so they are picking up a smaller proportion of actual infections) far far higher than that (10 per 100,000 for Ireland, reflecting a probably 30-80 per 100,000 actual infections; 31 per 100,000 for the Netherlands, reflecting a probably 100-300 per 100,000 actual infections).
Conclusion: the countries in question are causing unnecessary deaths to the tune of 200-1000 times as many people as the precaution could possibly save.
I am completely with you on the absurdity of this but are you not working on the basis that those people never get vaccinated? The risk factor is really that they are not vaccinated for another couple of weeks so you would need to look at the risk that those affected catch the disease and then die within that timescale.
It's something I have been thinking about in other contexts. It seems that the EU are likely to be somewhere between 3 and 6 months slower than us in universal vaccination. How many additional lives will that actually cost? If you take France they are currently losing between 100-300 a day so the extra deaths of a 3 month delay will be somewhere between 10k and 30k. Somewhat less than the extra we lost in January.
Its still a lot of unnecessary deaths and adding to it is madness but in the overall scheme of the pandemic it seems unlikely to be the most decisive factor in how hard the virus hit particular countries.
" If you take France they are currently losing between 100-300 a day so the extra deaths of a 3 month delay will be somewhere between 10k and 30k. Somewhat less than the extra we lost in January."
Would take issue with you use of "extra" we lost in January. There is no suggestion that total was avoidable. Some perhaps. But Covid would have found a way as it has across Europe this winter.
The French numbers WERE avoidable, by vaccinating.
Oh I agree and if Kent really takes off in France the numbers could really take off, just as they did here. The longer your population is vulnerable the greater risks that you run.
I am just pointing out that our speed of vaccine, though commendable, will not stop us from having one of the higher death rates overall. There are a lot of other factors that will determine the butcher's bill.
Apparently the Dutch have cancelled 43,000 appointments due to the pause on AstraZeneca. Crazy.
That is lost lives, right there
Precautionary Principle Arithmetic The vaccine either causes the thrombolitic events recorded or it does not (put aside for the moment the fact that the rate of them is no higher in the vaccinated)
IF it turned out that the vaccine did cause the thrombolitic events, then the one fatality out of the 10 million people dosed would, in fact, have been caused by the vaccine and the death rate is one in ten million. The above is what they are concerned about and why they are pausing to assess.
The IFR of covid across all populations is very close to 0.7% (one in 140). The rate of infection of those turned away would have to be below one in 70,000 in the period of suspension, otherwise the death rate caused by the suspension would automatically be greater than if no suspension occurred (AND, contrary to all the evidence, it DID end up causing the death).
(Also NB - there was a single death from the same cause in the 10 million Pfizer-jabbed as well)
The suspension can ONLY be justifiable if and only if the daily case rate in the countries in question is below 0.2 per 100,000 people.
Both Netherlands and Ireland have confirmed daily case rates (and they test far less than us, so they are picking up a smaller proportion of actual infections) far far higher than that (10 per 100,000 for Ireland, reflecting a probably 30-80 per 100,000 actual infections; 31 per 100,000 for the Netherlands, reflecting a probably 100-300 per 100,000 actual infections).
Conclusion: the countries in question are causing unnecessary deaths to the tune of 200-1000 times as many people as the precaution could possibly save.
I am completely with you on the absurdity of this but are you not working on the basis that those people never get vaccinated? The risk factor is really that they are not vaccinated for another couple of weeks so you would need to look at the risk that those affected catch the disease and then die within that timescale.
It's something I have been thinking about in other contexts. It seems that the EU are likely to be somewhere between 3 and 6 months slower than us in universal vaccination. How many additional lives will that actually cost? If you take France they are currently losing between 100-300 a day so the extra deaths of a 3 month delay will be somewhere between 10k and 30k. Somewhat less than the extra we lost in January.
Its still a lot of unnecessary deaths and adding to it is madness but in the overall scheme of the pandemic it seems unlikely to be the most decisive factor in how hard the virus hit particular countries.
Nope; the assumption was made on the grounds of 1 week extra risk of exposure per person. That would lead to daily-infection-rate x 7 extra infections, divide by 140 to get the extra deaths per week of exposure.
George Orwell once wrote 'after 40 every person has the face they deserve'.Visually Ed Davey looks a nasty piece of work as does nowadays Nicola Sturgeon .One can see that Nicola's face has changed since she has been in power.
I didn't change that much until I hit 50. Now I look fucking haggard especially since I abandoned the beard.
Drugs, overstressing your body cycling, driving like a maniac, craving Maoist revolutions, vegan diet..
Maybe a reset is needed.
You should go for the plant-based diet, Casino, it will set you free.....it's liberating.
Apparently the Dutch have cancelled 43,000 appointments due to the pause on AstraZeneca. Crazy.
That is lost lives, right there
Precautionary Principle Arithmetic The vaccine either causes the thrombolitic events recorded or it does not (put aside for the moment the fact that the rate of them is no higher in the vaccinated)
IF it turned out that the vaccine did cause the thrombolitic events, then the one fatality out of the 10 million people dosed would, in fact, have been caused by the vaccine and the death rate is one in ten million. The above is what they are concerned about and why they are pausing to assess.
The IFR of covid across all populations is very close to 0.7% (one in 140). The rate of infection of those turned away would have to be below one in 70,000 in the period of suspension, otherwise the death rate caused by the suspension would automatically be greater than if no suspension occurred (AND, contrary to all the evidence, it DID end up causing the death).
(Also NB - there was a single death from the same cause in the 10 million Pfizer-jabbed as well)
The suspension can ONLY be justifiable if and only if the daily case rate in the countries in question is below 0.2 per 100,000 people.
Both Netherlands and Ireland have confirmed daily case rates (and they test far less than us, so they are picking up a smaller proportion of actual infections) far far higher than that (10 per 100,000 for Ireland, reflecting a probably 30-80 per 100,000 actual infections; 31 per 100,000 for the Netherlands, reflecting a probably 100-300 per 100,000 actual infections).
Conclusion: the countries in question are causing unnecessary deaths to the tune of 200-1000 times as many people as the precaution could possibly save.
It's baffling. Surely these countries have statistical experts they could consult.
I was, perhaps naively, surprised that *every* country wasn't running an ONS style COVID survey.
It seems that this is an area where the UK is really ahead of many others.
The AZ debacle calls into question not the vaccine (the facts will eventually sort that out) but the EU's beloved precautionary principle itself. What kind of principle is it that can kill your people while you burnish your halo, EU?
I agree that the pause will kill people and is completely wrong. But you're mistaken to drag EU regulation into it. The EU regulators approve the use of AZ. It's national regulators exercising the right to override the EU that are causing the issue. If you really wanted to use the case to talk about the EU, it would be an example of a need for less national sovereignty and more central power for the EU. But that would be silly too - the reality is simply that there are over 100 national regulators in the world and some (inside and outside the EU) are being exaggeratedly cautious.
More generally, not everything is about everything else. Some things have nothing to do with Brexit.
Sorry, but I did not mention EU regulation, nor Brexit.
Nevertheless you managed to shoehorn 'EU' twice into a comment barely above twenty words total, when the AZN has been paused also in Norway, Thailand and Iceland, and all these decisions are being taken by national medical regulators.
The EU are the main proselytizers of the precautionary principle.
Well that was evasive. You might well believe that but it has zippo to do with the post. Have you posts that blames the EU for the potato famine, the cold war, tsunamis, and ebola?
The UK would be a better place if all the ludicrous, ill-written, stupidly authoritarian laws we have created in the last 18 months were immediately struck from the statute.
Unfortunately Pandora's box is open, the genie is out of the bottle and so on. It's going to be impossible to get back to where we were before all of this, the government has this new all powerful method of imposing on the people, it won't give them up, ever.
Apparently the Dutch have cancelled 43,000 appointments due to the pause on AstraZeneca. Crazy.
That is lost lives, right there
Precautionary Principle Arithmetic The vaccine either causes the thrombolitic events recorded or it does not (put aside for the moment the fact that the rate of them is no higher in the vaccinated)
IF it turned out that the vaccine did cause the thrombolitic events, then the one fatality out of the 10 million people dosed would, in fact, have been caused by the vaccine and the death rate is one in ten million. The above is what they are concerned about and why they are pausing to assess.
The IFR of covid across all populations is very close to 0.7% (one in 140). The rate of infection of those turned away would have to be below one in 70,000 in the period of suspension, otherwise the death rate caused by the suspension would automatically be greater than if no suspension occurred (AND, contrary to all the evidence, it DID end up causing the death).
(Also NB - there was a single death from the same cause in the 10 million Pfizer-jabbed as well)
The suspension can ONLY be justifiable if and only if the daily case rate in the countries in question is below 0.2 per 100,000 people.
Both Netherlands and Ireland have confirmed daily case rates (and they test far less than us, so they are picking up a smaller proportion of actual infections) far far higher than that (10 per 100,000 for Ireland, reflecting a probably 30-80 per 100,000 actual infections; 31 per 100,000 for the Netherlands, reflecting a probably 100-300 per 100,000 actual infections).
Conclusion: the countries in question are causing unnecessary deaths to the tune of 200-1000 times as many people as the precaution could possibly save.
I am completely with you on the absurdity of this but are you not working on the basis that those people never get vaccinated? The risk factor is really that they are not vaccinated for another couple of weeks so you would need to look at the risk that those affected catch the disease and then die within that timescale.
It's something I have been thinking about in other contexts. It seems that the EU are likely to be somewhere between 3 and 6 months slower than us in universal vaccination. How many additional lives will that actually cost? If you take France they are currently losing between 100-300 a day so the extra deaths of a 3 month delay will be somewhere between 10k and 30k. Somewhat less than the extra we lost in January.
Its still a lot of unnecessary deaths and adding to it is madness but in the overall scheme of the pandemic it seems unlikely to be the most decisive factor in how hard the virus hit particular countries.
" If you take France they are currently losing between 100-300 a day so the extra deaths of a 3 month delay will be somewhere between 10k and 30k. Somewhat less than the extra we lost in January."
Would take issue with you use of "extra" we lost in January. There is no suggestion that total was avoidable. Some perhaps. But Covid would have found a way as it has across Europe this winter.
The French numbers WERE avoidable, by vaccinating.
Oh I agree and if Kent really takes off in France the numbers could really take off, just as they did here. The longer your population is vulnerable the greater risks that you run.
I am just pointing out that our speed of vaccine, though commendable, will not stop us from having one of the higher death rates overall. There are a lot of other factors that will determine the butcher's bill.
It will do when you look at the factual butcher's bill as the excess death toll as opposed to the reported death toll.
We're already not one of the higher death rates via excess deaths but are comparable to a number of EU countries on that metric. But our excess deaths have stopped, theirs are continuing. Sadly the butchers bill hasn't been written in full yet.
Not like this, but a memorable experience as a young Conservative aged 19-20 years old was the lecherous behaviour of several homosexual Tory MPs, PPCs, and their friends. Some were in the closet, and some not, but you always knew when that was why they were interested in you - rather than what you had to say - and that was exceedingly uncomfortable.
It wasn't criminal, it wasn't assault, it was just obvious, uncomfortable and unwelcoming. It was probably the closest I came to a 'female' experience because you can easily tell when someone's checking you out (their eyes quickly scan up and down your body) or they dwell them for slightly too look on your arse, as opposed to your chest (I presume) if you're female.
Admittedly, I didn't have *that* much to say at 19, but I was very interested in politics and I was trying to find a experienced politician I could discuss things with and learn from, and you didn't feel you could complain about it much because you feared it would cut you off the opportunity to network and build a political career.
So, it was a sort of far milder gay #metoo.
As Conservative student, I was warned by a prominent agent never to be on my own with Peter Morrison.
A friend of mine was in a queue at the YC's conference in Scarborough in 1987, and realised someone was stroking his arse. He turned round and discovered it was a minister.
I do struggle with what to think from the issues surrounding the vigil.
However, I am glad that the central issue is that women need to feel safe when walking the streets. That is a hugely important and worthy goal - and although I don't support the battle of the sexes angle, there's no way that the streets can be made safer for women without them being made safer for everyone.
George Orwell once wrote 'after 40 every person has the face they deserve'.Visually Ed Davey looks a nasty piece of work as does nowadays Nicola Sturgeon .One can see that Nicola's face has changed since she has been in power.
I didn't change that much until I hit 50. Now I look fucking haggard especially since I abandoned the beard.
Drugs, overstressing your body cycling, driving like a maniac, craving Maoist revolutions, vegan diet..
Maybe a reset is needed.
You should go for the plant-based diet, Casino, it will set you free.....it's liberating.
I've googled him and it turns out that the Ed Davey mentioned in the header is apparently the leader of the liberal democrats. It's about time we had a liberal and democratic voice in this country.
Indeed. Whether Ed is that voice is the question.
Though today has at least confirmed he hasn't had a year-long bout of laryngitis. Which some may have idly wondered about...
Well that's nice but right now we seem to have:
A Labour party that is for middle class, public sector professionals as epitomised by their leadership which seems to totally ignore the working class for whom it was formed. A Conservative party that is anything but. A Lib Dem party which all too often seems neither liberal nor democratic.
If Cressida Dick goes, there'll be a new Met Commissioner. Priti Patel will have a very considerable influence on who's appointed. I can't find it surprising that Starmer, who knows this, should not be calling for C.D.'s resignation.
George Orwell once wrote 'after 40 every person has the face they deserve'.Visually Ed Davey looks a nasty piece of work as does nowadays Nicola Sturgeon .One can see that Nicola's face has changed since she has been in power.
I didn't change that much until I hit 50. Now I look fucking haggard especially since I abandoned the beard.
Drugs, overstressing your body cycling, driving like a maniac, craving Maoist revolutions, vegan diet..
Maybe a reset is needed.
You should go for the plant-based diet, Casino, it will set you free.....it's liberating.
Meat is a plant based diet.
Cut out the middle-man, go straight for the plants.
I think the reactionary principle applies to the protests - ever since the Police got rightly criticised for allowing BLM gatherings then they have been pretty firm on breaking up gatherings. As mentioned above the fact that they have policed the Piers Corbyn brigade harshly and issued many £10000 fines out seems to show that they were lighter touch in intention. The biggest problem for them is optics as one of their own is accused of murder, and as such it is difficult to see how they could have plotted an uncontroversial path.
Apparently the Dutch have cancelled 43,000 appointments due to the pause on AstraZeneca. Crazy.
That is lost lives, right there
Precautionary Principle Arithmetic The vaccine either causes the thrombolitic events recorded or it does not (put aside for the moment the fact that the rate of them is no higher in the vaccinated)
IF it turned out that the vaccine did cause the thrombolitic events, then the one fatality out of the 10 million people dosed would, in fact, have been caused by the vaccine and the death rate is one in ten million. The above is what they are concerned about and why they are pausing to assess.
The IFR of covid across all populations is very close to 0.7% (one in 140). The rate of infection of those turned away would have to be below one in 70,000 in the period of suspension, otherwise the death rate caused by the suspension would automatically be greater than if no suspension occurred (AND, contrary to all the evidence, it DID end up causing the death).
(Also NB - there was a single death from the same cause in the 10 million Pfizer-jabbed as well)
The suspension can ONLY be justifiable if and only if the daily case rate in the countries in question is below 0.2 per 100,000 people.
Both Netherlands and Ireland have confirmed daily case rates (and they test far less than us, so they are picking up a smaller proportion of actual infections) far far higher than that (10 per 100,000 for Ireland, reflecting a probably 30-80 per 100,000 actual infections; 31 per 100,000 for the Netherlands, reflecting a probably 100-300 per 100,000 actual infections).
Conclusion: the countries in question are causing unnecessary deaths to the tune of 200-1000 times as many people as the precaution could possibly save.
I am completely with you on the absurdity of this but are you not working on the basis that those people never get vaccinated? The risk factor is really that they are not vaccinated for another couple of weeks so you would need to look at the risk that those affected catch the disease and then die within that timescale.
It's something I have been thinking about in other contexts. It seems that the EU are likely to be somewhere between 3 and 6 months slower than us in universal vaccination. How many additional lives will that actually cost? If you take France they are currently losing between 100-300 a day so the extra deaths of a 3 month delay will be somewhere between 10k and 30k. Somewhat less than the extra we lost in January.
Its still a lot of unnecessary deaths and adding to it is madness but in the overall scheme of the pandemic it seems unlikely to be the most decisive factor in how hard the virus hit particular countries.
" If you take France they are currently losing between 100-300 a day so the extra deaths of a 3 month delay will be somewhere between 10k and 30k. Somewhat less than the extra we lost in January."
Would take issue with you use of "extra" we lost in January. There is no suggestion that total was avoidable. Some perhaps. But Covid would have found a way as it has across Europe this winter.
The French numbers WERE avoidable, by vaccinating.
Oh I agree and if Kent really takes off in France the numbers could really take off, just as they did here. The longer your population is vulnerable the greater risks that you run.
I am just pointing out that our speed of vaccine, though commendable, will not stop us from having one of the higher death rates overall. There are a lot of other factors that will determine the butcher's bill.
I think that projections of infection taking off are behind the political panic we are seeing in some countries.
Apparently the Dutch have cancelled 43,000 appointments due to the pause on AstraZeneca. Crazy.
That is lost lives, right there
Precautionary Principle Arithmetic The vaccine either causes the thrombolitic events recorded or it does not (put aside for the moment the fact that the rate of them is no higher in the vaccinated)
IF it turned out that the vaccine did cause the thrombolitic events, then the one fatality out of the 10 million people dosed would, in fact, have been caused by the vaccine and the death rate is one in ten million. The above is what they are concerned about and why they are pausing to assess.
The IFR of covid across all populations is very close to 0.7% (one in 140). The rate of infection of those turned away would have to be below one in 70,000 in the period of suspension, otherwise the death rate caused by the suspension would automatically be greater than if no suspension occurred (AND, contrary to all the evidence, it DID end up causing the death).
(Also NB - there was a single death from the same cause in the 10 million Pfizer-jabbed as well)
The suspension can ONLY be justifiable if and only if the daily case rate in the countries in question is below 0.2 per 100,000 people.
Both Netherlands and Ireland have confirmed daily case rates (and they test far less than us, so they are picking up a smaller proportion of actual infections) far far higher than that (10 per 100,000 for Ireland, reflecting a probably 30-80 per 100,000 actual infections; 31 per 100,000 for the Netherlands, reflecting a probably 100-300 per 100,000 actual infections).
Conclusion: the countries in question are causing unnecessary deaths to the tune of 200-1000 times as many people as the precaution could possibly save.
I am completely with you on the absurdity of this but are you not working on the basis that those people never get vaccinated? The risk factor is really that they are not vaccinated for another couple of weeks so you would need to look at the risk that those affected catch the disease and then die within that timescale.
It's something I have been thinking about in other contexts. It seems that the EU are likely to be somewhere between 3 and 6 months slower than us in universal vaccination. How many additional lives will that actually cost? If you take France they are currently losing between 100-300 a day so the extra deaths of a 3 month delay will be somewhere between 10k and 30k. Somewhat less than the extra we lost in January.
Its still a lot of unnecessary deaths and adding to it is madness but in the overall scheme of the pandemic it seems unlikely to be the most decisive factor in how hard the virus hit particular countries.
" If you take France they are currently losing between 100-300 a day so the extra deaths of a 3 month delay will be somewhere between 10k and 30k. Somewhat less than the extra we lost in January."
Would take issue with you use of "extra" we lost in January. There is no suggestion that total was avoidable. Some perhaps. But Covid would have found a way as it has across Europe this winter.
The French numbers WERE avoidable, by vaccinating.
Oh I agree and if Kent really takes off in France the numbers could really take off, just as they did here. The longer your population is vulnerable the greater risks that you run.
I am just pointing out that our speed of vaccine, though commendable, will not stop us from having one of the higher death rates overall. There are a lot of other factors that will determine the butcher's bill.
It will do when you look at the factual butcher's bill as the excess death toll as opposed to the reported death toll.
We're already not one of the higher death rates via excess deaths but are comparable to a number of EU countries on that metric. But our excess deaths have stopped, theirs are continuing. Sadly the butchers bill hasn't been written in full yet.
I reckon everyone on here will have heard of anecdotes where people who were clearly not killed by Covid have had Covid written on the death certificate to avoid an "unnecessary" post-mortem.
It's easy to see that our Covid death figures may be over estimates rather than underestimates and that the only comparison which may provide meaningful comparison figures is excess deaths
On topic - It is regretful that Cressida Dick and Priti Patel must go, but go they must. You can't respond to a vigil for women's safety where a male Met Police officer has been charged with abduction and murder by having male Met Police officers dragging women off into the dark.
When that has happened you can't say "we are the polis, stop judging us" whether you are a female Commissioner or not. If you are the Home Secretary you can't publicly say "this looks wrong" and then privately give the Commissioner your support whether you are female or not.
Dick backed her officers bringing the force into disrepute. She must go. Patel backed the Commissioner's actions in bringing the force into disrepute. She must go.
In reality neither will go. The Tories will instead choose to attack Khan for not firing Dick (which he does not have the authority to do, that would be the Home Secretary) whilst Patel continues to push through her "Twat them round the head with your Truncheon" Bill.
Mr. L, I do wonder if our death toll is exaggerated by people with the disease almost always indicated as dying of it.
Possibly but excess deaths do seem to indicate we have not had a great time of it. Obesity, largish minorities, high density of population, an obsession with shopping as a leisure activity, a tendency to blame the NHS or the state for much of our own health problems, an insane international travel policy, who knows?
The UK would be a better place if all the ludicrous, ill-written, stupidly authoritarian laws we have created in the last 18 months were immediately struck from the statute.
Agreed - it is disheartening to hear politicians criticise Police for enacting the laws they introduced.
Off-topic - an interesting work discussion to kick off later. Looks like my consultancy days are numbered as my client wants to put me on the books. Whilst the role and the title and the security mean that yes I would be delighted to go on a contract, I have warned them about my tax exposure which they have promised to make right.
Mr. L, I do wonder if our death toll is exaggerated by people with the disease almost always indicated as dying of it.
Possibly but excess deaths do seem to indicate we have not had a great time of it. Obesity, largish minorities, high density of population, an obsession with shopping as a leisure activity, a tendency to blame the NHS or the state for much of our own health problems, an insane international travel policy, who knows?
I've googled him and it turns out that the Ed Davey mentioned in the header is apparently the leader of the liberal democrats. It's about time we had a liberal and democratic voice in this country.
Indeed. Whether Ed is that voice is the question.
Though today has at least confirmed he hasn't had a year-long bout of laryngitis. Which some may have idly wondered about...
The quiet man is here to stay and he's turning up the volume?
George Orwell once wrote 'after 40 every person has the face they deserve'.Visually Ed Davey looks a nasty piece of work as does nowadays Nicola Sturgeon .One can see that Nicola's face has changed since she has been in power.
I didn't change that much until I hit 50. Now I look fucking haggard especially since I abandoned the beard.
Drugs, overstressing your body cycling, driving like a maniac, craving Maoist revolutions, vegan diet..
Maybe a reset is needed.
You should go for the plant-based diet, Casino, it will set you free.....it's liberating.
Meat is a plant based diet.
Cut out the middle-man, go straight for the plants.
Plants are great, wonderful to include in the diet, but often, meat provides the minerals contained therein in a more digestible/absorbable form. Just as plants provide them in a more digestible form than if they're simply found in the earth. Otherwise why not cut the middleman out entirely and eat rocks?
I've googled him and it turns out that the Ed Davey mentioned in the header is apparently the leader of the liberal democrats. It's about time we had a liberal and democratic voice in this country.
Indeed. Whether Ed is that voice is the question.
Though today has at least confirmed he hasn't had a year-long bout of laryngitis. Which some may have idly wondered about...
The quiet man is here to stay and he's turning up the volume?
George Orwell once wrote 'after 40 every person has the face they deserve'.Visually Ed Davey looks a nasty piece of work as does nowadays Nicola Sturgeon .One can see that Nicola's face has changed since she has been in power.
I didn't change that much until I hit 50. Now I look fucking haggard especially since I abandoned the beard.
Drugs, overstressing your body cycling, driving like a maniac, craving Maoist revolutions, vegan diet..
Maybe a reset is needed.
You should go for the plant-based diet, Casino, it will set you free.....it's liberating.
Today's reported deaths should be nice and low with yesterday being a sunday and more immunity kicking in.
Remember it takes 20 days for vaccinations to take effect, and around 20 days to die from covid from the point of infection - so Days - 40 for vaccinations to take effect deaths which was 10 million point covering perhaps groups 1 - 3. That's ~ three million up from last sunday.
Not like this, but a memorable experience as a young Conservative aged 19-20 years old was the lecherous behaviour of several homosexual Tory MPs, PPCs, and their friends. Some were in the closet, and some not, but you always knew when that was why they were interested in you - rather than what you had to say - and that was exceedingly uncomfortable.
It wasn't criminal, it wasn't assault, it was just obvious, uncomfortable and unwelcoming. It was probably the closest I came to a 'female' experience because you can easily tell when someone's checking you out (their eyes quickly scan up and down your body) or they dwell them for slightly too look on your arse, as opposed to your chest (I presume) if you're female.
Admittedly, I didn't have *that* much to say at 19, but I was very interested in politics and I was trying to find a experienced politician I could discuss things with and learn from, and you didn't feel you could complain about it much because you feared it would cut you off the opportunity to network and build a political career.
So, it was a sort of far milder gay #metoo.
As Conservative student, I was warned by a prominent agent never to be on my own with Peter Morrison.
A friend of mine was in a queue at the YC's conference in Scarborough in 1987, and realised someone was stroking his arse. He turned round and discovered it was a minister.
The AZ debacle calls into question not the vaccine (the facts will eventually sort that out) but the EU's beloved precautionary principle itself. What kind of principle is it that can kill your people while you burnish your halo, EU?
I agree that the pause will kill people and is completely wrong. But you're mistaken to drag EU regulation into it. The EU regulators approve the use of AZ. It's national regulators exercising the right to override the EU that are causing the issue. If you really wanted to use the case to talk about the EU, it would be an example of a need for less national sovereignty and more central power for the EU. But that would be silly too - the reality is simply that there are over 100 national regulators in the world and some (inside and outside the EU) are being exaggeratedly cautious.
More generally, not everything is about everything else. Some things have nothing to do with Brexit.
Sorry, but I did not mention EU regulation, nor Brexit.
Nevertheless you managed to shoehorn 'EU' twice into a comment barely above twenty words total, when the AZN has been paused also in Norway, Thailand and Iceland, and all these decisions are being taken by national medical regulators.
The EU are the main proselytizers of the precautionary principle.
Well that was evasive. You might well believe that but it has zippo to do with the post. Have you posts that blames the EU for the potato famine, the cold war, tsunamis, and ebola?
This was my post:
The AZ debacle calls into question not the vaccine (the facts will eventually sort that out) but the EU's beloved precautionary principle itself. What kind of principle is it that can kill your people while you burnish your halo, EU?
So entirely to do with the precautionary principle. Dunno where the other irrelevancies you witter about come into it.
Cressida Dick was a completely bizarre choice for the Met. Her career should have ended in ignominy after the killing of de Menezes and the appalling lies that were told to justify that. But, having slept on it, I don't think her career will be ended by this. Cops have been wildly inconsistent in enforcing the law around protest and this was stupid, heavy handed and unnecessary. But no one died and the law was enforced. Whatever the "optics" the cops did their job.
If people want the police not to enforce stupid laws they should not allow politicians to pass them.
It looks to me as though the Met have been ruthlessly consistent over the last few months. As you say, the politicians are responsible for the law.
BLM? Extinction Rebellion? I really don't agree.
Before the law change. As was pointed out earlier, those women ought to count themselves grateful for not getting a £10,000 fine. The police have been handing those out like confetti for months.
Who exactly was the organiser? That's your £10,000.
The one to watch is I think Wednesday's, which is being driven by groups such as Counterfire, as was endorsed by the 'victim' who was photographed, and who imo in this interview seems surprisingly unshocked whilst discussing strategy.
Off-topic - an interesting work discussion to kick off later. Looks like my consultancy days are numbered as my client wants to put me on the books. Whilst the role and the title and the security mean that yes I would be delighted to go on a contract, I have warned them about my tax exposure which they have promised to make right.
Off-topic - an interesting work discussion to kick off later. Looks like my consultancy days are numbered as my client wants to put me on the books. Whilst the role and the title and the security mean that yes I would be delighted to go on a contract, I have warned them about my tax exposure which they have promised to make right.
Could be fun
One thing that you should be wary of, and which has caught out some of my friends who have gone from self employed to salaried positions, is that for the first year you will effectively pay tax twice, once on last years self employed earnings and then on PAYE for the current earnings. It can cause quite a cash flow issue.
Because Dick is saying "You TOLD me I had one over-riding priority: protect the lockdown. So I did."
The correct response is "Yeah - but not like THAT."
Did nobody even consider the optics of having male Met coppers piling in to arrest and cuff women on a vigil - a vigil for a woman kidnapped and murdered by a male Met copper?
Apparently the Dutch have cancelled 43,000 appointments due to the pause on AstraZeneca. Crazy.
That is lost lives, right there
Precautionary Principle Arithmetic The vaccine either causes the thrombolitic events recorded or it does not (put aside for the moment the fact that the rate of them is no higher in the vaccinated)
IF it turned out that the vaccine did cause the thrombolitic events, then the one fatality out of the 10 million people dosed would, in fact, have been caused by the vaccine and the death rate is one in ten million. The above is what they are concerned about and why they are pausing to assess.
The IFR of covid across all populations is very close to 0.7% (one in 140). The rate of infection of those turned away would have to be below one in 70,000 in the period of suspension, otherwise the death rate caused by the suspension would automatically be greater than if no suspension occurred (AND, contrary to all the evidence, it DID end up causing the death).
(Also NB - there was a single death from the same cause in the 10 million Pfizer-jabbed as well)
The suspension can ONLY be justifiable if and only if the daily case rate in the countries in question is below 0.2 per 100,000 people.
Both Netherlands and Ireland have confirmed daily case rates (and they test far less than us, so they are picking up a smaller proportion of actual infections) far far higher than that (10 per 100,000 for Ireland, reflecting a probably 30-80 per 100,000 actual infections; 31 per 100,000 for the Netherlands, reflecting a probably 100-300 per 100,000 actual infections).
Conclusion: the countries in question are causing unnecessary deaths to the tune of 200-1000 times as many people as the precaution could possibly save.
I am completely with you on the absurdity of this but are you not working on the basis that those people never get vaccinated? The risk factor is really that they are not vaccinated for another couple of weeks so you would need to look at the risk that those affected catch the disease and then die within that timescale.
It's something I have been thinking about in other contexts. It seems that the EU are likely to be somewhere between 3 and 6 months slower than us in universal vaccination. How many additional lives will that actually cost? If you take France they are currently losing between 100-300 a day so the extra deaths of a 3 month delay will be somewhere between 10k and 30k. Somewhat less than the extra we lost in January.
Its still a lot of unnecessary deaths and adding to it is madness but in the overall scheme of the pandemic it seems unlikely to be the most decisive factor in how hard the virus hit particular countries.
" If you take France they are currently losing between 100-300 a day so the extra deaths of a 3 month delay will be somewhere between 10k and 30k. Somewhat less than the extra we lost in January."
Would take issue with you use of "extra" we lost in January. There is no suggestion that total was avoidable. Some perhaps. But Covid would have found a way as it has across Europe this winter.
The French numbers WERE avoidable, by vaccinating.
Oh I agree and if Kent really takes off in France the numbers could really take off, just as they did here. The longer your population is vulnerable the greater risks that you run.
I am just pointing out that our speed of vaccine, though commendable, will not stop us from having one of the higher death rates overall. There are a lot of other factors that will determine the butcher's bill.
It will do when you look at the factual butcher's bill as the excess death toll as opposed to the reported death toll.
We're already not one of the higher death rates via excess deaths but are comparable to a number of EU countries on that metric. But our excess deaths have stopped, theirs are continuing. Sadly the butchers bill hasn't been written in full yet.
I reckon everyone on here will have heard of anecdotes where people who were clearly not killed by Covid have had Covid written on the death certificate to avoid an "unnecessary" post-mortem.
It's easy to see that our Covid death figures may be over estimates rather than underestimates and that the only comparison which may provide meaningful comparison figures is excess deaths
Such anecdotes are not believable. They require a doctor to lie on a death certificate - career ending and legal problems on top....
Comments
Tom: "I mean, Sex didn't even enter into it!"
Geraldine: "Oh, but of course it did, darling. I don't think he would have given [the money] to me if I had hair like Excelsoir and little short legs like an alligator. Sex always has something to do with it, dear...From the time you're about so big, and wondering why your girlfriends' fathers are getting so arch all of a sudden. Nothing wrong, just an overture to the opera that's coming...but from then on, you get it from cops, taxi drivers, bell boys, delicatessen dealers..."
Oh, but of course Brexit did, Nick.
Thousands of men are protected by friends and family who turn a blind eye to their abusive behaviour
NICK TIMOTHY"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/14/country-does-not-take-violenceagainst-women-seriously-enough/
"Wotcher mean, yer don't want it? Are yer mad?"
The Italian government had taken the position it was a missile and blamed the Americans. The Italian air safety organisation asked Farnborough to do a report. Farnborough did a report - including live testing - which proved it was very likely a bomb in the rear toilet. IIRC explosive residue, location of the explosion and the lack of fragments. It also, conclusively, ruled out a missile.
The Italian regulator rejected it on the grounds it was politically unusable.
He looks as though he has been masticating on a tough and gristly piece of pork for fifteen years.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote.
Being proportional and using common sense, as the Court had already ruled, is exactly what I wanted. Not Stasi enforcement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_massacre#Prosecution and all that...
Maybe a reset is needed.
I am not sure Ed Davey, who I like, hasn't just shot from the hip here for a quick headline. Which indeed, he has achieved.
I note the BBC now has voicovers that cannot pronounce the the word three and say Free..
40% saying vigil should have been permitted, 43% against.
23% say Dick should resign vs 47% not.
26% say vigils and protests should be allowed, vs 59% not.
So people do seem to allow exceptions. The age split was that youngsters were more keen on the vigil than pensioners. Not much gender difference.
It wasn't criminal, it wasn't assault, it was just obvious, uncomfortable and unwelcoming. It was probably the closest I came to a 'female' experience because you can easily tell when someone's checking you out (their eyes quickly scan up and down your body) or they dwell them for slightly too look on your arse, as opposed to your chest (I presume) if you're female.
Admittedly, I didn't have *that* much to say at 19, but I was very interested in politics and I was trying to find a experienced politician I could discuss things with and learn from, and you didn't feel you could complain about it much because you feared it would cut you off the opportunity to network and build a political career.
So, it was a sort of far milder gay #metoo.
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
But I come back to my original point. If politicians want the law to be applied "reasonably" and want the police to be able to exercise discretion based on an assessment of the actual risk then they have to write the laws that way. They don't want to because that requires thought, talking through the messy compromises and complicating the message. So they dump the problem on the police and the courts and then complain about the results. It's unimpressive.
Although I haven't got a white beard. Shock of white hair, yes.
Another vaccine is a poor placebo, as any vaccine stimulates the immune system modestly, reducing the demonstrated effectiveness of the trial vaccine.
I reported the response to Nicky Campbell and Rachel Burden's interview on 5 live of an attendee at the virgil was overwhelmingly in support of the police, with the common response questioning why people had attended an illegal gathering
They did say the responses from listeners was not that of twitter but it should be noted that the vast majority of polls support covid safe measures
The Precautionary Principle is now a rhetorical construct used when an evidenced-based case cannot be made, but where irrational doubt needs to be made to sound respectable. That is a Green (and green) speciality.
@NickPalmer , I think the EU process is more than over-cautionary reactions.
UVDL and other know that at some time someone is going to be held responsible for the EU Citizens who are ill or die between the date when the EU could have had widespread vaccination, and the date when it actually was in place. *
And I think that is why they have been running blame-somebody-else narratives, starting with lying about the content of the AZ contract before it was published.
There are aleady people such as Pete Liese MEP running similar narratives around J&J.
(* Currently this number is somewhat under 100k dead EU Citizens.) That last para is (I hope) beneath you.
Do you really judge people by what they look like to that extent?
That's one up from regarding people in wheelchairs as subhuman because they are different.
https://twitter.com/coldwar_steve/status/1371389332775391242?s=21
The problem is the Police always want more powers, more draconian. A liberal society needs to stand up to the Police, as well as supporting them to do their jobs.
The vaccine either causes the thrombolitic events recorded or it does not (put aside for the moment the fact that the rate of them is no higher in the vaccinated)
IF it turned out that the vaccine did cause the thrombolitic events, then the one fatality out of the 10 million people dosed would, in fact, have been caused by the vaccine and the death rate is one in ten million.
The above is what they are concerned about and why they are pausing to assess.
The IFR of covid across all populations is very close to 0.7% (one in 140).
The rate of infection of those turned away would have to be below one in 70,000 in the period of suspension, otherwise the death rate caused by the suspension would automatically be greater than if no suspension occurred (AND, contrary to all the evidence, it DID end up causing the death).
(Also NB - there was a single death from the same cause in the 10 million Pfizer-jabbed as well)
The suspension can ONLY be justifiable if and only if the daily case rate in the countries in question is below 0.2 per 100,000 people.
Both Netherlands and Ireland have confirmed daily case rates (and they test far less than us, so they are picking up a smaller proportion of actual infections) far far higher than that (10 per 100,000 for Ireland, reflecting a probably 30-80 per 100,000 actual infections; 31 per 100,000 for the Netherlands, reflecting a probably 100-300 per 100,000 actual infections).
Conclusion: the countries in question are causing unnecessary deaths to the tune of 200-1000 times as many people as the precaution could possibly save.
Thailand might just about be justified in the pause - and probably not even then, other countries are not.
It's something I have been thinking about in other contexts. It seems that the EU are likely to be somewhere between 3 and 6 months slower than us in universal vaccination. How many additional lives will that actually cost? If you take France they are currently losing between 100-300 a day so the extra deaths of a 3 month delay will be somewhere between 10k and 30k. Somewhat less than the extra we lost in January.
Its still a lot of unnecessary deaths and adding to it is madness but in the overall scheme of the pandemic it seems unlikely to be the most decisive factor in how hard the virus hit particular countries.
Of course, they should.
"Normally an experimental drug would be compared against a dummy – saline, salty water, generally.
But the scientists knew that the vaccine had the potential to cause low-grade side effects – fevers, headaches and sore arms.
They needed to compare it against another vaccine with a similar profile of side effects so they could spot anything out of the ordinary."
Sky news story of the vaccine's development.
Would take issue with you use of "extra" we lost in January. There is no suggestion that total was avoidable. Some perhaps. But Covid would have found a way as it has across Europe this winter.
The French numbers WERE avoidable, by vaccinating.
I am just pointing out that our speed of vaccine, though commendable, will not stop us from having one of the higher death rates overall. There are a lot of other factors that will determine the butcher's bill.
That would lead to daily-infection-rate x 7 extra infections, divide by 140 to get the extra deaths per week of exposure.
It seems that this is an area where the UK is really ahead of many others.
https://twitter.com/YearCovid/status/1371389959689621505?s=20
https://twitter.com/YearCovid/status/1371395098232070145?s=20
We're already not one of the higher death rates via excess deaths but are comparable to a number of EU countries on that metric. But our excess deaths have stopped, theirs are continuing. Sadly the butchers bill hasn't been written in full yet.
A friend of mine was in a queue at the YC's conference in Scarborough in 1987, and realised someone was stroking his arse. He turned round and discovered it was a minister.
However, I am glad that the central issue is that women need to feel safe when walking the streets. That is a hugely important and worthy goal - and although I don't support the battle of the sexes angle, there's no way that the streets can be made safer for women without them being made safer for everyone.
A Labour party that is for middle class, public sector professionals as epitomised by their leadership which seems to totally ignore the working class for whom it was formed.
A Conservative party that is anything but.
A Lib Dem party which all too often seems neither liberal nor democratic.
And don't get me started on the SNP...
It can also be read as "we haven't a clue what we are saying but this is what we would just LOVE to happen...."
Probably.
It's easy to see that our Covid death figures may be over estimates rather than underestimates and that the only comparison which may provide meaningful comparison figures is excess deaths
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/03/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation/
When that has happened you can't say "we are the polis, stop judging us" whether you are a female Commissioner or not. If you are the Home Secretary you can't publicly say "this looks wrong" and then privately give the Commissioner your support whether you are female or not.
Dick backed her officers bringing the force into disrepute. She must go. Patel backed the Commissioner's actions in bringing the force into disrepute. She must go.
In reality neither will go. The Tories will instead choose to attack Khan for not firing Dick (which he does not have the authority to do, that would be the Home Secretary) whilst Patel continues to push through her "Twat them round the head with your Truncheon" Bill.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1370911500781694977
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1371397853294247936
Could be fun
The once.
Remember it takes 20 days for vaccinations to take effect, and around 20 days to die from covid from the point of infection - so
Days - 40 for vaccinations to take effect deaths which was 10 million point covering perhaps groups 1 - 3. That's ~ three million up from last sunday.
Dunno where the other irrelevancies you witter about come into it.
https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2021/03/13/sarah-everard-vigil-cancelled/
So you need the further organisers.
The one to watch is I think Wednesday's, which is being driven by groups such as Counterfire, as was endorsed by the 'victim' who was photographed, and who imo in this interview seems surprisingly unshocked whilst discussing strategy.
https://twitter.com/counterfireorg/status/1370899755786702849
Mr. Mark, Caesar was an eminent self-publicist. Gave his name to a salad, you know.
The correct response is "Yeah - but not like THAT."
Did nobody even consider the optics of having male Met coppers piling in to arrest and cuff women on a vigil - a vigil for a woman kidnapped and murdered by a male Met copper?
They should still let go of Dick.