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.
Indeed, some people don't realise just how long the lag is. The first 1-4 rollout was only completed 13 Feb so there's nearly another fortnight until we hit 40 days from them.
The vaccines left idle in the fridge for the next couple of weeks in Europe will lead to deaths still ongoing potentially in May that could have been avoided.
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.
Your desperation to spin is almost admirable or is it just pathetic? Are you hoping for a job at Conservative Central Office, or are you already in one?
I can only guess that your almost permanent residency on this site is motivated by a desire to be heard, but can I suggest you at least try and apply a tiny amount of the scepticism you have for foreign governments to our own? You may even find that people on here start to take your opinions a little more seriously if you don't sound like a government spin doctor.
There are elements of what this government has done that are to be cautiously applauded, such as the vaccine procurement and roll out (well done Zahawi) and also the furlough scheme (well done Sunak) etc., but their early response to lockdown and track and trace was a display of the worst form of vacillation and indecision that undoubtedly cost lives. Right wing keyboard warriors like yourself that try to excuse this, or play with and spin figures insult the dead and their families.
after the rollout of Covid vaccines in the US, the number of new Covid cases among nursing home staff fell 83% – from 28,802 for the week ending 20 December to 4,764 for the week ending 14 February, according to data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
New Covid-19 infections among nursing home residents fell even more steeply, by 89%, in that period, compared with 58% in the general public, CMS and Johns Hopkins University data show.]
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.
Your desperation to spin is almost admirable or is it just pathetic? Are you hoping for a job at Conservative Central Office, or are you already in one?
I can only guess that your almost permanent residency on this site is motivated by a desire to be heard, but can I suggest you at least try and apply a tiny amount of the scepticism you have for foreign governments to our own? You may even find that people on here start to take your opinions a little more seriously if you don't sound like a government spin doctor.
There are elements of what this government has done that are to be cautiously applauded, such as the vaccine procurement and roll out (well done Zahawi) and also the furlough scheme (well done Sunak) etc., but their early response to lockdown and track and trace was a display of the worst form of vacillation and indecision that undoubtedly cost lives. Right wing keyboard warriors like yourself that try to excuse this, or play with and spin figures insult the dead and their families.
And I have criticised the government when I think its in the wrong. Which is not that unusual considering the government has authoritarian elements in it and I'm a liberal, hence why HYUFD insists I'm "not a real Tory" - yet you have this caricature that I'm some hardright loon.
Be nice for you and HYUFD to have a talk and straighten this out.
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.
Nah. It's utterly shite.
Although, ironically, it would make it easier to avoid consuming actual fecal matter.
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.
Due to my salary I've been on self assessment for years which at the very least means I get to refund back to HMRC the previous year's Child Benefit payments Mrs RP has had. Due to furlough & redundancy in the outgoing tax year my earnings will be lower than in previous years so I'd expect next January's tax bill not to be as bad. New contract I would propose to start 6th April for a nice clean changeover...
I think the ineveitable global success of the vaccines will set the the "anti vax" movement back a significant amount. You could argue that if that is the case, the net health effect of the COVID-19 pandemic could be positive.
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....
That is not the problem. The problem is that someone dying of cancer who has a +ve covid test within 28 days of death "counts" whether they would have died in that period or not. Unless we eliminate it completely we will never reduce Covid deaths to nil on such a basis, even if they are not actually dying of Covid.
I don't think anyone sane is suggesting that this is some conspiracy by the medical profession, are they?
Mr. Gate, ha. You show a remarkably optimistic perspective on the impact that evidence and facts will have on anti-vaxxers, a group notoriously impervious to such considerations.
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.
To be fair, she sounds like a nightmare. She kicked off her answers with "cis" and "trans" and then started talking about global protests 'everywhere', whilst her mates cheered her on in the background.
Worth nothing that "Counterfire is a socialist organisation committed to building the biggest possible movements against a system that is creating more and more crisis and misery", so it's not hard to see their agenda.
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....
That is not the problem. The problem is that someone dying of cancer who has a +ve covid test within 28 days of death "counts" whether they would have died in that period or not. Unless we eliminate it completely we will never reduce Covid deaths to nil on such a basis, even if they are not actually dying of Covid.
I don't think anyone sane is suggesting that this is some conspiracy by the medical profession, are they?
"anecdotes where people who were clearly not killed by Covid have had Covid written on the death certificate to avoid an "unnecessary" post-mortem."
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?
They should still let go of Dick.
That Cretin Shaun Bailey is campaigning on Khan's failure with regards to a Commissioner who reports into the Home Secretary. Whilst Dick (and Khan) should resign, they won't. Dick says "I'm doing what you [Patel] told me to. Patel openly thinks more coppers should twat more protesters round the head, and besides which if Dick remains in place unfired by her, the party can campaign against Khan's shameful failure to fire her.
I'm shocked that public opinion isn't as universal as the media would have us believe.
Splits by politics, age and gender as expected.
EDIT: One thing you can almost always rely on is for women to be much happier to say "don't know". True again to the extent that men are 6pp more likely to say that Dick should go.
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?
They should still let go of Dick.
Unless CD would go public on it all. Better inside the tent if the alternative is her on 24-hr news saying "they made me do it".
What do you think? I'm getting tired of people posting polls, which ask people who have no interest/information and – until asked – probably no opinion.
What's your view? What do you think about it all HYUFD?
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.
Your desperation to spin is almost admirable or is it just pathetic? Are you hoping for a job at Conservative Central Office, or are you already in one?
I can only guess that your almost permanent residency on this site is motivated by a desire to be heard, but can I suggest you at least try and apply a tiny amount of the scepticism you have for foreign governments to our own? You may even find that people on here start to take your opinions a little more seriously if you don't sound like a government spin doctor.
There are elements of what this government has done that are to be cautiously applauded, such as the vaccine procurement and roll out (well done Zahawi) and also the furlough scheme (well done Sunak) etc., but their early response to lockdown and track and trace was a display of the worst form of vacillation and indecision that undoubtedly cost lives. Right wing keyboard warriors like yourself that try to excuse this, or play with and spin figures insult the dead and their families.
And I have criticised the government when I think its in the wrong. Which is not that unusual considering the government has authoritarian elements in it and I'm a liberal, hence why HYUFD insists I'm "not a real Tory" - yet you have this caricature that I'm some hardright loon.
Be nice for you and HYUFD to have a talk and straighten this out.
The economist figures above are interesting - I had seen an earlier iteration of these but wasn't aware that they were being updated. Peru's excess deaths have shot up in the last couple of months - that looks calamitous, and almost totally, AFAIAA, unreported elsewhere.
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?
They should still let go of Dick.
That Cretin Shaun Bailey is campaigning on Khan's failure with regards to a Commissioner who reports into the Home Secretary. Whilst Dick (and Khan) should resign, they won't. Dick says "I'm doing what you [Patel] told me to. Patel openly thinks more coppers should twat more protesters round the head, and besides which if Dick remains in place unfired by her, the party can campaign against Khan's shameful failure to fire her.
As I understand things the law is very clear that both the Mayor of London and the Home Secretary have no direct control of operational decisions made by the police. There are very strong controls & separation of powers in place, and for good reasons.
Also, (again, as I understand things) legally neither is able to call for the resignation of Cressida Dick - there’s a weird dance of letters between the Mayor & the Home Secretary & the Police that has to happen before either of them is legally able to call for her resignation.
So any criticism of either Khan or Patel over the actions of the MET on Saturday night is simply political opportunism. Neither had the power to control what the police chose to do, so long as it was within their legal powers (and it seems pretty clear that their actions were probably lawful, even if woefully misguided).
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?
They should still let go of Dick.
That Cretin Shaun Bailey is campaigning on Khan's failure with regards to a Commissioner who reports into the Home Secretary. Whilst Dick (and Khan) should resign, they won't. Dick says "I'm doing what you [Patel] told me to. Patel openly thinks more coppers should twat more protesters round the head, and besides which if Dick remains in place unfired by her, the party can campaign against Khan's shameful failure to fire her.
Yep the politics of this is shit. Bailey has confirmed what everyone thought about him and done no-one any favours including himself. Kahn seems to have taken a sensible line as does the Government at the moment.
In the end, whilst obviously the politicians set the tone, operational decisions rest with Dick and her subordinates. Someone has to answer for making such a complete and utter fuck up of this - it may not even be Dick. I doubt she personally told the operational commander to go in hard, well not unless she is completely mad I I don't believe she is. Personally I suspect the responsibility for this cluster rightly lies with someone below Dick. The important point now is they should properly be held responsible.
Worth nothing that "Counterfire is a socialist organisation committed to building the biggest possible movements against a system that is creating more and more crisis and misery", so it's not hard to see their agenda.
Counterfire are trots and therefore have to be purged before we can even start on the tories.
I'm shocked that public opinion isn't as universal as the media would have us believe.
Splits by politics, age and gender as expected.
EDIT: One thing you can almost always rely on is for women to be much happier to say "don't know". True again to the extent that men are 6pp more likely to say that Dick should go.
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....
That is not the problem. The problem is that someone dying of cancer who has a +ve covid test within 28 days of death "counts" whether they would have died in that period or not. Unless we eliminate it completely we will never reduce Covid deaths to nil on such a basis, even if they are not actually dying of Covid.
I don't think anyone sane is suggesting that this is some conspiracy by the medical profession, are they?
I agree, but set against that are the number of deaths that occur after the 28-day cut off. The daily figures show that backfilling from more than 28 days ago suggests that some 'genuine' Covid deaths will not be included in official Covid data. I suspect that the numbers will more or less balance out in the long term.
The red-headed protester is certainly making the most of this.
That's a bit like saying the Pope is Catholic isn't it?
Protesters have a tendency to want to get attention for the cause they're protesting on behalf of.
Kind of why they're protesting in the first place.
Smart Policing doesn't give the protesters reasons to get their cause amplified.
Quite. Even if this was a clever piece of political theatre (which doesn’t appear to be the case) then the MET walked right into the trap eyes wide open with their boots stomping away.
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?
They should still let go of Dick.
That Cretin Shaun Bailey is campaigning on Khan's failure with regards to a Commissioner who reports into the Home Secretary. Whilst Dick (and Khan) should resign, they won't. Dick says "I'm doing what you [Patel] told me to. Patel openly thinks more coppers should twat more protesters round the head, and besides which if Dick remains in place unfired by her, the party can campaign against Khan's shameful failure to fire her.
Yep the politics of this is shit. Bailey has confirmed what everyone thought about him and done no-one any favours including himself. Kahn seems to have taken a sensible line as does the Government at the moment.
In the end, whilst obviously the politicians set the tone, operational decisions rest with Dick and her subordinates. Someone has to answer for making such a complete and utter fuck up of this - it may not even be Dick. I doubt she personally told the operational commander to go in hard, well not unless she is completely mad I I don't believe she is. Personally I suspect the responsibility for this cluster rightly lies with someone below Dick. The important point now is they should properly be held responsible.
"someone below Dick" = Dick.
And of course Dick = HS.
It would be very poor form if Gold, or even Silver on the day are booted out. They don't operate in a vacuum. Especially now and especially at such an event now.
I'm shocked that public opinion isn't as universal as the media would have us believe.
Splits by politics, age and gender as expected.
EDIT: One thing you can almost always rely on is for women to be much happier to say "don't know". True again to the extent that men are 6pp more likely to say that Dick should go.
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.
Your desperation to spin is almost admirable or is it just pathetic? Are you hoping for a job at Conservative Central Office, or are you already in one?
I can only guess that your almost permanent residency on this site is motivated by a desire to be heard, but can I suggest you at least try and apply a tiny amount of the scepticism you have for foreign governments to our own? You may even find that people on here start to take your opinions a little more seriously if you don't sound like a government spin doctor.
There are elements of what this government has done that are to be cautiously applauded, such as the vaccine procurement and roll out (well done Zahawi) and also the furlough scheme (well done Sunak) etc., but their early response to lockdown and track and trace was a display of the worst form of vacillation and indecision that undoubtedly cost lives. Right wing keyboard warriors like yourself that try to excuse this, or play with and spin figures insult the dead and their families.
And I have criticised the government when I think its in the wrong. Which is not that unusual considering the government has authoritarian elements in it and I'm a liberal, hence why HYUFD insists I'm "not a real Tory" - yet you have this caricature that I'm some hardright loon.
Be nice for you and HYUFD to have a talk and straighten this out.
The economist figures above are interesting - I had seen an earlier iteration of these but wasn't aware that they were being updated. Peru's excess deaths have shot up in the last couple of months - that looks calamitous, and almost totally, AFAIAA, unreported elsewhere.
A suprising number of countries whose "excess deaths" figure is now negative. I presume in normal times roughly half the countries should be there at any one time but in the middle of a pandemic it is remarkable.
I'm shocked that public opinion isn't as universal as the media would have us believe.
Splits by politics, age and gender as expected.
EDIT: One thing you can almost always rely on is for women to be much happier to say "don't know". True again to the extent that men are 6pp more likely to say that Dick should go.
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....
That is not the problem. The problem is that someone dying of cancer who has a +ve covid test within 28 days of death "counts" whether they would have died in that period or not. Unless we eliminate it completely we will never reduce Covid deaths to nil on such a basis, even if they are not actually dying of Covid.
I don't think anyone sane is suggesting that this is some conspiracy by the medical profession, are they?
I agree, but set against that are the number of deaths that occur after the 28-day cut off. The daily figures show that backfilling from more than 28 days ago suggests that some 'genuine' Covid deaths will not be included in official Covid data. I suspect that the numbers will more or less balance out in the long term.
I've done some fag packet maths on the back of this, it's highly likely the excess deaths after 28 days are greater than the deaths @Davidl are on about.
Worth nothing that "Counterfire is a socialist organisation committed to building the biggest possible movements against a system that is creating more and more crisis and misery", so it's not hard to see their agenda.
Counterfire are trots and therefore have to be purged before we can even start on the tories.
It's important to remember that supporting the idea that protests shouldn't be allowed at the moment is not the same as supporting the manner in which the Police "shut down" the vigil.
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.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Because as IanB2 pointed out in your email of so few words you managed to mention the EU twice where it had no relevance. You obviously have an EU bee in your bonnet. I agree the other things I mentioned are irrelevant and I am sure you understand why I mentioned them rather than pleading ignorance, but I am happy to explain again:
If you are happy to blame the EU for stuff that non EU countries have done, why not go the whole hog and blame them for all manner of irrelevant stuff.
I'm shocked that public opinion isn't as universal as the media would have us believe.
Splits by politics, age and gender as expected.
EDIT: One thing you can almost always rely on is for women to be much happier to say "don't know". True again to the extent that men are 6pp more likely to say that Dick should go.
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.
To be fair, she sounds like a nightmare. She kicked off her answers with "cis" and "trans" and then started talking about global protests 'everywhere', whilst her mates cheered her on in the background.
Worth nothing that "Counterfire is a socialist organisation committed to building the biggest possible movements against a system that is creating more and more crisis and misery", so it's not hard to see their agenda.
Counterfire was formed by a split from the SWP. Lindsey German (lead the Stop the War Coalition) and John Rees (similar for the Socialist Alliance) were forced out/walked from their SWP Central Committee positions when their "movements" strategy didn't result in success for the SWP.
Given the SWP's history with sexual assault allegations they're a bit of an odd pick for leading this struggle for justice - but you can't blame people for not knowing all this history.
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.
To be fair, she sounds like a nightmare. She kicked off her answers with "cis" and "trans" and then started talking about global protests 'everywhere', whilst her mates cheered her on in the background.
Worth nothing that "Counterfire is a socialist organisation committed to building the biggest possible movements against a system that is creating more and more crisis and misery", so it's not hard to see their agenda.
Self service tills in supermarkets? I see their point.
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.
David, not if you have been a good boy and put your tax diligently into a bank account throughout the year in anticipation of the bill.
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.
David, not if you have been a good boy and put your tax diligently into a bank account throughout the year in anticipation of the bill.
It's important to remember that supporting the idea that protests shouldn't be allowed at the moment is not the same as supporting the manner in which the Police "shut down" the vigil.
Perhaps not, and opinion is just that.
The problem is that the police have to treat everyone and every situation equally in terms of who they are policing. They can't go easy on these young women because the optics would be bad.
The politicians should understand this and their pandering to (un)popular opinion is disgraceful.
Methinks she was prepared well for the photo shoots.
Does it matter? Of course the Suffragettes engaged in the same kind of high-visibility counter-culture campaigning. Do the ends justify the means?
The Suffragettes probably wouldn't have been able to achieve what they did, when they did, without the more "socially acceptable" and "reasonable" Suffragists... but it's probably the same in reverse too.
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.
To be fair, she sounds like a nightmare. She kicked off her answers with "cis" and "trans" and then started talking about global protests 'everywhere', whilst her mates cheered her on in the background.
Worth nothing that "Counterfire is a socialist organisation committed to building the biggest possible movements against a system that is creating more and more crisis and misery", so it's not hard to see their agenda.
Self service tills in supermarkets? I see their point.
A new supermarket just opened near me and its got new self-service tills that operate differently. Basically there's no scales at all in the bagging area: just scan, bag, pay and go.
Eliminating the scales seems to have eliminated about 98% of the irritance of self-service. Only time I need assistance now is for someone to press the button to say "over 25" and that's it - and since the person monitoring the tills is not constantly having to deal with a till saying the bagging weight is incorrect so it needs authorisation they're available when you need them instead.
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.
To be fair, she sounds like a nightmare. She kicked off her answers with "cis" and "trans" and then started talking about global protests 'everywhere', whilst her mates cheered her on in the background.
Worth nothing that "Counterfire is a socialist organisation committed to building the biggest possible movements against a system that is creating more and more crisis and misery", so it's not hard to see their agenda.
Self service tills in supermarkets? I see their point.
A new supermarket just opened near me and its got new self-service tills that operate differently. Basically there's no scales at all in the bagging area: just scan, bag, pay and go.
Eliminating the scales seems to have eliminated about 98% of the irritance of self-service. Only time I need assistance now is for someone to press the button to say "over 25" and that's it - and since the person monitoring the tills is not constantly having to deal with a till saying the bagging weight is incorrect so it needs authorisation the person working on the tills is actually available when you need them.
Does eliminating the scales mean everything has to be pre-bagged with single-use plastic?
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....
That is not the problem. The problem is that someone dying of cancer who has a +ve covid test within 28 days of death "counts" whether they would have died in that period or not. Unless we eliminate it completely we will never reduce Covid deaths to nil on such a basis, even if they are not actually dying of Covid.
I don't think anyone sane is suggesting that this is some conspiracy by the medical profession, are they?
I agree, but set against that are the number of deaths that occur after the 28-day cut off. The daily figures show that backfilling from more than 28 days ago suggests that some 'genuine' Covid deaths will not be included in official Covid data. I suspect that the numbers will more or less balance out in the long term.
I've done some fag packet maths on the back of this, it's highly likely the excess deaths after 28 days are greater than the deaths @Davidl are on about.
IIRC the 28 days number was chosen because the various effect pretty much balance out.
It's important to remember that supporting the idea that protests shouldn't be allowed at the moment is not the same as supporting the manner in which the Police "shut down" the vigil.
Perhaps not, and opinion is just that.
The problem is that the police have to treat everyone and every situation equally in terms of who they are policing. They can't go easy on these young women because the optics would be bad.
The politicians should understand this and their pandering to (un)popular opinion is disgraceful.
But the police have *never* treated everyone and every situation equally. That never happens.
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?
They should still let go of Dick.
That Cretin Shaun Bailey is campaigning on Khan's failure with regards to a Commissioner who reports into the Home Secretary. Whilst Dick (and Khan) should resign, they won't. Dick says "I'm doing what you [Patel] told me to. Patel openly thinks more coppers should twat more protesters round the head, and besides which if Dick remains in place unfired by her, the party can campaign against Khan's shameful failure to fire her.
As I understand things the law is very clear that both the Mayor of London and the Home Secretary have no direct control of operational decisions made by the police. There are very strong controls & separation of powers in place, and for good reasons.
Also, (again, as I understand things) legally neither is able to call for the resignation of Cressida Dick - there’s a weird dance of letters between the Mayor & the Home Secretary & the Police that has to happen before either of them is legally able to call for her resignation.
So any criticism of either Khan or Patel over the actions of the MET on Saturday night is simply political opportunism. Neither had the power to control what the police chose to do, so long as it was within their legal powers (and it seems pretty clear that their actions were probably lawful, even if woefully misguided).
They do have Dame Cressida's telephone number though, don't they? It seems fairly clear that a major issue was the fact that the Police refused to have a dialogue with Reclaim These Streets and instead had a court battle then threatened large fines.
But this was a completely unrealistic strategy given emotions were running high, people were going to congregate, and the Police had a goodwill problem, in part because of the circumstances of the case. So they needed to be working with a responsible organising group, offering to provide volunteer marshals and so on, to keep it orderly.
Patel and/or Khan could have had that discussion with Dick. As politicians, they are actually very well placed to judge the public mood and see that the alternative to an organised vigil was not no vigil but a disorganised event. She might have ignored them and said "I'm the professional copper here". But it looks as if they either didn't have concerns over a pretty surprising Police strategy to say the least, or didn't raise them.
On Police strategy while the event was going on, totally agree that Patel and Khan realistically can't contribute. But there was a build up to this over several days, and the danger was fairly clear.
Methinks she was prepared well for the photo shoots.
Does it matter? Of course the Suffragettes engaged in the same kind of high-visibility counter-culture campaigning. Do the ends justify the means?
The Suffragettes probably wouldn't have been able to achieve what they did, when they did, without the more "socially acceptable" and "reasonable" Suffragists... but it's probably the same in reverse too.
Not to me at all but she is no sweet innocent bystander. Easy enough to fool the plod. She should come to Scotland, the police give the crowds escorts into the city centre , stop the traffic etc, only if you have plenty of union jacks flying mind you.
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.
To be fair, she sounds like a nightmare. She kicked off her answers with "cis" and "trans" and then started talking about global protests 'everywhere', whilst her mates cheered her on in the background.
Worth nothing that "Counterfire is a socialist organisation committed to building the biggest possible movements against a system that is creating more and more crisis and misery", so it's not hard to see their agenda.
Self service tills in supermarkets? I see their point.
A new supermarket just opened near me and its got new self-service tills that operate differently. Basically there's no scales at all in the bagging area: just scan, bag, pay and go.
Eliminating the scales seems to have eliminated about 98% of the irritance of self-service. Only time I need assistance now is for someone to press the button to say "over 25" and that's it - and since the person monitoring the tills is not constantly having to deal with a till saying the bagging weight is incorrect so it needs authorisation the person working on the tills is actually available when you need them.
Does eliminating the scales mean everything has to be pre-bagged with single-use plastic?
No, weighted items being processed aren't weighed by the bagging area scales in the first place.
There's a scale on the till if you want to eg weigh some apples, but the bagging area scales are gone.
Personally I suspect the responsibility for this cluster rightly lies with someone below Dick. The important point now is they should properly be held responsible.
The first thing I was told as a new Midshipman was, "You delegate the task not the responsibility."
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?
They should still let go of Dick.
That Cretin Shaun Bailey is campaigning on Khan's failure with regards to a Commissioner who reports into the Home Secretary. Whilst Dick (and Khan) should resign, they won't. Dick says "I'm doing what you [Patel] told me to. Patel openly thinks more coppers should twat more protesters round the head, and besides which if Dick remains in place unfired by her, the party can campaign against Khan's shameful failure to fire her.
Yep the politics of this is shit. Bailey has confirmed what everyone thought about him and done no-one any favours including himself. Kahn seems to have taken a sensible line as does the Government at the moment.
In the end, whilst obviously the politicians set the tone, operational decisions rest with Dick and her subordinates. Someone has to answer for making such a complete and utter fuck up of this - it may not even be Dick. I doubt she personally told the operational commander to go in hard, well not unless she is completely mad I I don't believe she is. Personally I suspect the responsibility for this cluster rightly lies with someone below Dick. The important point now is they should properly be held responsible.
"someone below Dick" = Dick.
And of course Dick = HS.
It would be very poor form if Gold, or even Silver on the day are booted out. They don't operate in a vacuum. Especially now and especially at such an event now.
I would absolutely put my hand up and say I don't know enough about police organisation to disagree with you on that. All I would say is I am surprised that someone as high up in the command chain is making decisions on how individual events ae policed and the actions tat are taken.
But again I am not knowledgeable enough to argue the case.
It's important to remember that supporting the idea that protests shouldn't be allowed at the moment is not the same as supporting the manner in which the Police "shut down" the vigil.
Perhaps not, and opinion is just that.
The problem is that the police have to treat everyone and every situation equally in terms of who they are policing. They can't go easy on these young women because the optics would be bad.
The politicians should understand this and their pandering to (un)popular opinion is disgraceful.
But the police have *never* treated everyone and every situation equally. That never happens.
Well, every situation is different to a certain extent. But if an impromptu BLM vigil occurred in a similar location on Saturday, I'd expect the police to take the same approach.
Obviously individual police officers will always be a bit different, but the extent to which the police allow people to break these laws should be consistent.
It seems to me that some on here think that because there is a perception that the police go soft on white women, they should do so in this case.
I think the ineveitable global success of the vaccines will set the the "anti vax" movement back a significant amount. You could argue that if that is the case, the net health effect of the COVID-19 pandemic could be positive.
Hope so. I really struggle with the concept that anti vax parents are allowed to send their kids to school. It would be great if we could get to the point where anti vax numbers are sufficiently small that we could with minimal opposition, introduce mandatory vaccination for the childhood suite as a condition of entry to educational establishments, as works so well in other countries.
The golden rule of British politics: whatever twitter thinks on an issue will be the opposite of what the electorate as a whole thinks about it.
I know you're joking, but Twitter isn't a single hivemind. There's a significant "left-wing woke" bubble on Twitter of course, but there's also significant "right wing" anti-vax super pro Brexit bubbles, amongst other things.
The way Twitter works is that depending on who you follow it's easy to get suckered into thinking EVERYONE thinks the way you do, and that applies to all political persuasions.
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.
There was no organiser - that is the point.
As the court decision prior to the event made clear, it was entirely within the discretion of the police to allow the vigil to go ahead (indeed the local force reportedly wished to do so). Had that happened, it would have been stewarded, and the dangers of socially distanced and masked people on the wide spaces of Clapham Common would have been minimal - and police conditions agreed with organisers, who were more than prepared to discuss them with the police, might have rendered them even less so.
It ought to have been reasonably clear that some sort of unorganised protest would still happen, and the consequences of subsequent police intervention ought to have been equally foreseeable.
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.
A good summary of what most Labour supporters are probably thinking on this.
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.
To be fair, she sounds like a nightmare. She kicked off her answers with "cis" and "trans" and then started talking about global protests 'everywhere', whilst her mates cheered her on in the background.
Worth nothing that "Counterfire is a socialist organisation committed to building the biggest possible movements against a system that is creating more and more crisis and misery", so it's not hard to see their agenda.
I'm shocked that public opinion isn't as universal as the media would have us believe.
Splits by politics, age and gender as expected.
EDIT: One thing you can almost always rely on is for women to be much happier to say "don't know". True again to the extent that men are 6pp more likely to say that Dick should go.
And curious that Lib Dems (small sample, I know), are somewhere in the middle.
Not that I was polled, but I have to say I am split. The police should exercise common sense on enforcement (that snowball fight on the common comes to mind as being pointless to enforce), but I am also not sure of what these women were trying to achieve and I have sympathy with @Casino_Royale point about that protester interviewed. My first reaction was 'What?'
The murder of that woman was awful (and now sadly has been politicized) and the fear and treatment of women in the street can be awful and very scary, but what is the objective and how can it be achieved? That surely is the important point. There will always be men who will abuse or attack women and this problem is not only a women's issue. We should remember that the vast majority of street assaults are against young men. As a young man in the time of skinheads and the height of football hooliganism I think myself lucky to have escaped any beatings, but I had a few close shaves and it is sad to say I did have to take precautions (I was at Uni in Manchester and we never went out on a Sat afternoon when man Utd were playing at home.).
We should do stuff to try an eliminate this type of behaviour, but also have to accept it will happen, but be relieved that it is rare, which is of no consolation to those affected sadly.
It's important to remember that supporting the idea that protests shouldn't be allowed at the moment is not the same as supporting the manner in which the Police "shut down" the vigil.
Perhaps not, and opinion is just that.
The problem is that the police have to treat everyone and every situation equally in terms of who they are policing. They can't go easy on these young women because the optics would be bad.
The politicians should understand this and their pandering to (un)popular opinion is disgraceful.
Firstly, the treatment of Rangers fans celebrating their win rather suggests situations are NOT being treated equally (different force of course).
Secondly, the whole point of the court decision on Friday is that there isn't a blanket rule. It essentially said that the "lawful excuse" reason to be outside was complex in the case of protest and it's for the police to carry out a proportionality assessment based on all the circumstances.
It's important to remember that supporting the idea that protests shouldn't be allowed at the moment is not the same as supporting the manner in which the Police "shut down" the vigil.
Perhaps not, and opinion is just that.
The problem is that the police have to treat everyone and every situation equally in terms of who they are policing. They can't go easy on these young women because the optics would be bad.
The politicians should understand this and their pandering to (un)popular opinion is disgraceful.
But the police have *never* treated everyone and every situation equally. That never happens.
Well, every situation is different to a certain extent. But if an impromptu BLM vigil occurred in a similar location on Saturday, I'd expect the police to take the same approach.
Obviously individual police officers will always be a bit different, but the extent to which the police allow people to break these laws should be consistent.
It seems to me that some on here think that because there is a perception that the police go soft on white women, they should do so in this case.
No I think there's a perception that the Police go hard on unarmed women while standing back and going soft on anyone that might pose more of a threat to them.
So much for the PBers calling her Dick's head (sounds a bit rude) over the weekend and suggesting the public were appalled. The twitter bubble strikes again. No chance she resigns now and numerous journalists have made fools of themselves trying to create chaos.
@Gallowgate - I think you're right that the police do show leniency to certain groups in general. I'll give you an example. In 2010 I foolishly agreed to pick up my sister and her friend after they'd had a day at Royal Ascot (we live c.10 miles from Ascot).
Anyway, I told them to walk down to the railway station and I'd meet them there (I know the back roads in to avoid the worst off the traffic). I get to the station and park up, and sure enough my sister wants me to drive up the hill to the track to pick them up. I foolishly agree and start making my way up the hill and notice the organisers have, quite understandably, put railings on each side of the road to keep vehicles and pedestrians separate.
Of course my sister and her friend are absolutely smashed. My sister spots my car and proceeds to unhook one of the barriers to get in my car. A copper spots what's going on and rushes over. Now, I reckon if a bloke had done this it would not have ended well for them. But my sister flutters her eyelashes at him and he lets her get away with it.
That kind of thing might be acceptable in those circumstances. But policing COVID law? No way.
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.
To be fair, she sounds like a nightmare. She kicked off her answers with "cis" and "trans" and then started talking about global protests 'everywhere', whilst her mates cheered her on in the background.
Worth nothing that "Counterfire is a socialist organisation committed to building the biggest possible movements against a system that is creating more and more crisis and misery", so it's not hard to see their agenda.
Counterfire was formed by a split from the SWP. Lindsey German (lead the Stop the War Coalition) and John Rees (similar for the Socialist Alliance) were forced out/walked from their SWP Central Committee positions when their "movements" strategy didn't result in success for the SWP.
Given the SWP's history with sexual assault allegations they're a bit of an odd pick for leading this struggle for justice - but you can't blame people for not knowing all this history.
The factions and splinter groups of both hard left and right are, I think, of interest only to themselves.
It's important to remember that supporting the idea that protests shouldn't be allowed at the moment is not the same as supporting the manner in which the Police "shut down" the vigil.
Perhaps not, and opinion is just that.
The problem is that the police have to treat everyone and every situation equally in terms of who they are policing. They can't go easy on these young women because the optics would be bad.
The politicians should understand this and their pandering to (un)popular opinion is disgraceful.
Firstly, the treatment of Rangers fans celebrating their win rather suggests situations are NOT being treated equally (different force of course).
Secondly, the whole point of the court decision on Friday is that there isn't a blanket rule. It essentially said that the "lawful excuse" reason to be outside was complex in the case of protest and it's for the police to carry out a proportionality assessment based on all the circumstances.
Different force is a very important point, in my opinion. We'll never know because Arsenal fans are far too middle class to break the law, but we'd have got the treatment from the Met if we'd celebrated our FA Cup win last August.
As for the High Court decision, well, the police have been taking a zero tolerance approach. Now, you might disagree with that, but we cannot have the police allowing some protests on the grounds of the cause. No, just no.
My 29 year old colleague got a jab of AZ at the weekend. She has been volunteering in a vaccination centre in Manchester and was able to get a left over dose at the end of the day.
She said there had been quite a few no-shows. Hopefully not linked to the blood clot bollocks.
Is this just getting on with it not a form of cheating though? I mean, nothing like an Indian third umpire level of cheating, but still, maybe just not playing fair?
My 29 year old colleague got a jab of AZ at the weekend. She has been volunteering in a vaccination centre in Manchester and was able to get a left over dose at the end of the day.
She said there had been quite a few no-shows. Hopefully not linked to the blood clot bollocks.
More likely just people forgetting/life getting in the way I expect. ~ 30% of people never vote - I expect the number doing that out of principle in that group is quite low most just won't be bothered. So first jabs will be going on for some time after all adults have been vaxxed.
Comments
The vaccines left idle in the fridge for the next couple of weeks in Europe will lead to deaths still ongoing potentially in May that could have been avoided.
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1371399268767006720?s=20
I can only guess that your almost permanent residency on this site is motivated by a desire to be heard, but can I suggest you at least try and apply a tiny amount of the scepticism you have for foreign governments to our own? You may even find that people on here start to take your opinions a little more seriously if you don't sound like a government spin doctor.
There are elements of what this government has done that are to be cautiously applauded, such as the vaccine procurement and roll out (well done Zahawi) and also the furlough scheme (well done Sunak) etc., but their early response to lockdown and track and trace was a display of the worst form of vacillation and indecision that undoubtedly cost lives. Right wing keyboard warriors like yourself that try to excuse this, or play with and spin figures insult the dead and their families.
after the rollout of Covid vaccines in the US, the number of new Covid cases among nursing home staff fell 83% – from 28,802 for the week ending 20 December to 4,764 for the week ending 14 February, according to data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
New Covid-19 infections among nursing home residents fell even more steeply, by 89%, in that period, compared with 58% in the general public, CMS and Johns Hopkins University data show.]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/mar/15/coronavirus-live-news-astrazeneca-finds-no-evidence-of-blood-clot-risk-as-netherlands-suspends-vaccine
And I have criticised the government when I think its in the wrong. Which is not that unusual considering the government has authoritarian elements in it and I'm a liberal, hence why HYUFD insists I'm "not a real Tory" - yet you have this caricature that I'm some hardright loon.
Be nice for you and HYUFD to have a talk and straighten this out.
I don't think anyone sane is suggesting that this is some conspiracy by the medical profession, are they?
Protesters have a tendency to want to get attention for the cause they're protesting on behalf of.
Kind of why they're protesting in the first place.
Smart Policing doesn't give the protesters reasons to get their cause amplified.
Worth nothing that "Counterfire is a socialist organisation committed to building the biggest possible movements against a system that is creating more and more crisis and misery", so it's not hard to see their agenda.
That is what I don't think is happening.
Splits by politics, age and gender as expected.
EDIT: One thing you can almost always rely on is for women to be much happier to say "don't know". True again to the extent that men are 6pp more likely to say that Dick should go.
What's your view? What do you think about it all HYUFD?
Also, (again, as I understand things) legally neither is able to call for the resignation of Cressida Dick - there’s a weird dance of letters between the Mayor & the Home Secretary & the Police that has to happen before either of them is legally able to call for her resignation.
So any criticism of either Khan or Patel over the actions of the MET on Saturday night is simply political opportunism. Neither had the power to control what the police chose to do, so long as it was within their legal powers (and it seems pretty clear that their actions were probably lawful, even if woefully misguided).
In the end, whilst obviously the politicians set the tone, operational decisions rest with Dick and her subordinates. Someone has to answer for making such a complete and utter fuck up of this - it may not even be Dick. I doubt she personally told the operational commander to go in hard, well not unless she is completely mad I I don't believe she is. Personally I suspect the responsibility for this cluster rightly lies with someone below Dick. The important point now is they should properly be held responsible.
https://twitter.com/EdwardJDavey/status/1371137967524286466?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1371401350853038089?s=20
And of course Dick = HS.
It would be very poor form if Gold, or even Silver on the day are booted out. They don't operate in a vacuum. Especially now and especially at such an event now.
https://twitter.com/BeckettUnite/status/1371364900489068545?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1371401355487805441
Dunno where the other irrelevancies you witter about come into it.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Because as IanB2 pointed out in your email of so few words you managed to mention the EU twice where it had no relevance. You obviously have an EU bee in your bonnet. I agree the other things I mentioned are irrelevant and I am sure you understand why I mentioned them rather than pleading ignorance, but I am happy to explain again:
If you are happy to blame the EU for stuff that non EU countries have done, why not go the whole hog and blame them for all manner of irrelevant stuff.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/philosophy/survey-results/daily/2021/03/15/45e83/2
Given the SWP's history with sexual assault allegations they're a bit of an odd pick for leading this struggle for justice - but you can't blame people for not knowing all this history.
The problem is that the police have to treat everyone and every situation equally in terms of who they are policing. They can't go easy on these young women because the optics would be bad.
The politicians should understand this and their pandering to (un)popular opinion is disgraceful.
The Suffragettes probably wouldn't have been able to achieve what they did, when they did, without the more "socially acceptable" and "reasonable" Suffragists... but it's probably the same in reverse too.
Eliminating the scales seems to have eliminated about 98% of the irritance of self-service. Only time I need assistance now is for someone to press the button to say "over 25" and that's it - and since the person monitoring the tills is not constantly having to deal with a till saying the bagging weight is incorrect so it needs authorisation they're available when you need them instead.
But this was a completely unrealistic strategy given emotions were running high, people were going to congregate, and the Police had a goodwill problem, in part because of the circumstances of the case. So they needed to be working with a responsible organising group, offering to provide volunteer marshals and so on, to keep it orderly.
Patel and/or Khan could have had that discussion with Dick. As politicians, they are actually very well placed to judge the public mood and see that the alternative to an organised vigil was not no vigil but a disorganised event. She might have ignored them and said "I'm the professional copper here". But it looks as if they either didn't have concerns over a pretty surprising Police strategy to say the least, or didn't raise them.
On Police strategy while the event was going on, totally agree that Patel and Khan realistically can't contribute. But there was a build up to this over several days, and the danger was fairly clear.
https://twitter.com/EssexTory/status/1371119150656016403
I'm going to put this down as 'fake news' at the moment.
There's a scale on the till if you want to eg weigh some apples, but the bagging area scales are gone.
Unless you are one of those who thinks that words are "literal violence".
But again I am not knowledgeable enough to argue the case.
Obviously individual police officers will always be a bit different, but the extent to which the police allow people to break these laws should be consistent.
It seems to me that some on here think that because there is a perception that the police go soft on white women, they should do so in this case.
https://twitter.com/UKDefJournal/status/1371387466427605004?s=20
The way Twitter works is that depending on who you follow it's easy to get suckered into thinking EVERYONE thinks the way you do, and that applies to all political persuasions.
As the court decision prior to the event made clear, it was entirely within the discretion of the police to allow the vigil to go ahead (indeed the local force reportedly wished to do so).
Had that happened, it would have been stewarded, and the dangers of socially distanced and masked people on the wide spaces of Clapham Common would have been minimal - and police conditions agreed with organisers, who were more than prepared to discuss them with the police, might have rendered them even less so.
It ought to have been reasonably clear that some sort of unorganised protest would still happen, and the consequences of subsequent police intervention ought to have been equally foreseeable.
Just point Liz in the direction of Brussels...
Not that I was polled, but I have to say I am split. The police should exercise common sense on enforcement (that snowball fight on the common comes to mind as being pointless to enforce), but I am also not sure of what these women were trying to achieve and I have sympathy with @Casino_Royale point about that protester interviewed. My first reaction was 'What?'
The murder of that woman was awful (and now sadly has been politicized) and the fear and treatment of women in the street can be awful and very scary, but what is the objective and how can it be achieved? That surely is the important point. There will always be men who will abuse or attack women and this problem is not only a women's issue. We should remember that the vast majority of street assaults are against young men. As a young man in the time of skinheads and the height of football hooliganism I think myself lucky to have escaped any beatings, but I had a few close shaves and it is sad to say I did have to take precautions (I was at Uni in Manchester and we never went out on a Sat afternoon when man Utd were playing at home.).
We should do stuff to try an eliminate this type of behaviour, but also have to accept it will happen, but be relieved that it is rare, which is of no consolation to those affected sadly.
Secondly, the whole point of the court decision on Friday is that there isn't a blanket rule. It essentially said that the "lawful excuse" reason to be outside was complex in the case of protest and it's for the police to carry out a proportionality assessment based on all the circumstances.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1371401350853038089?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1371400648374255616?s=20
Anyway, I told them to walk down to the railway station and I'd meet them there (I know the back roads in to avoid the worst off the traffic). I get to the station and park up, and sure enough my sister wants me to drive up the hill to the track to pick them up. I foolishly agree and start making my way up the hill and notice the organisers have, quite understandably, put railings on each side of the road to keep vehicles and pedestrians separate.
Of course my sister and her friend are absolutely smashed. My sister spots my car and proceeds to unhook one of the barriers to get in my car. A copper spots what's going on and rushes over. Now, I reckon if a bloke had done this it would not have ended well for them. But my sister flutters her eyelashes at him and he lets her get away with it.
That kind of thing might be acceptable in those circumstances. But policing COVID law? No way.
However, if there is any evidence there will be plenty of video from the protest side and from police helmet cams of several sorts.
As for the High Court decision, well, the police have been taking a zero tolerance approach. Now, you might disagree with that, but we cannot have the police allowing some protests on the grounds of the cause. No, just no.
My 29 year old colleague got a jab of AZ at the weekend. She has been volunteering in a vaccination centre in Manchester and was able to get a left over dose at the end of the day.
She said there had been quite a few no-shows. Hopefully not linked to the blood clot bollocks.