Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

AOC-2024? Yes, the Democrats really could go from their oldest nominee to their youngest – political

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited March 20 in General
imageAOC-2024? Yes, the Democrats really could go from their oldest nominee to their youngest – politicalbetting.com

Joe Biden is 5/2 against to be the Democrats’ nominee for president in 2024. There has surely never been such long odds for a first-term elected president. Frankly, I think that’s huge value despite his age. Political leaders do not give up lightly and only got where they are because of tenacity and a considerable belief in themselves.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,962
    First!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 30,969
    Political imagery is so tediously derivative

    Couldn’t they think up with something bother than “the new Obama”?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,925
    Second. Doesn't happen often. Where's the spring sunshine gone, too?

    History sometimes moves on with a big heave, rather than by small steps.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 30,577
    Obviously the Dems would love to rack up those massive majorities in NY and CA, and lose all the marginal states where most Americans who choose the President actually live.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,437
    Re Democratic nominee 2024:

    See Biden trip? He's probably not going to be the candidate in three and a half years time.

    5/2 is a 40% chance. That seems too much for a 78 year old, who seems to already be struggling.

    So, who to replace him?

    AOC? No appeal beyond New York, San Francisco and... and... some other place I can't think of.
    Buttigieg? I think he needs to be elected to something bigger than Mayor of South Bend first.

    Harris is a terrible campaigner, but gets first dibs. If the next three and a half years is sunshine and honey for the US, then she is the nominee.

    Otherwise, I think you need to look a bit further. What about Krysten Sisnema? Or Tammy Baldwin? Or Rahm Emmanuel? Or perhaps Amy Klobuchar?

    I think I'd be selling AOC, Biden and Buttigieg.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695
    Totally disagree. Biden will not be the 2024 candidate. He is already being hidden away from press questions. He referred to Harris as the President this past week. He slipped 3 times on the steps to Air Force 1 - also this week. That after he had set off purposefully with his mind set on one thing - "just make it up those steps..." It was painful to watch.

    2 months into his term, 46 more to go. 46 gruelling, get-me-outta-here months. (Although I expect it to be Acting President Kamala Harris under the 25th at some point within those 46...)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 55,280
    FPT:

    Betting Post

    F1: this isn't my type of bet (low odds, longish time frame). But Ladbrokes has a best rookie market Yuki Tsunoda (AlphaTauri) is 1.08. Schumacher and Mazepin are 10 and 15 respectively.

    Tsunoda is almost certain to win this, barring serious injury that stops him racing. Haas have already said they aren't developing their car this year. The AlphaTauri was significantly faster last year anyway.

    So, if a low odds but very likely bet is your thing, give this a look.


    On-topic: entirely possible they'll go for her. Not inclined to back it given the time scale and relatively short odds, though.
  • LindonLightLindonLight Posts: 96
    edited March 20
    An interesting thread. The odds clearly indicate if not Biden then Harris and that is probably that. Isn't AOC a too divisive figure in the country?

    However I thought Meghan Markle has started her campaign for the nomination?! :wink:

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-meghan-markle-president-2024

    Her suicidal comments, whilst treated sensitively by a lot of people, might come back to bite her. I'm painfully aware of the blight of mental ill-health but someone who might take their own life at the first hint of things not going their way is not a qualification for POTUS. That's not my take. It would be the opposition party's and, boy, would they ensure it was stirred. Not entirely unreasonably as it happens. If 'the Firm' can get to her that much then she's not strong enough to be President. Period. She thinks they're bad. Try Putin. Try China. Try any number of pressures that come the way of the President of the United States.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,437
    rcs1000 said:

    Re Democratic nominee 2024:

    See Biden trip? He's probably not going to be the candidate in three and a half years time.

    5/2 is a 40% chance. That seems too much for a 78 year old, who seems to already be struggling.

    So, who to replace him?

    AOC? No appeal beyond New York, San Francisco and... and... some other place I can't think of.
    Buttigieg? I think he needs to be elected to something bigger than Mayor of South Bend first.

    Harris is a terrible campaigner, but gets first dibs. If the next three and a half years is sunshine and honey for the US, then she is the nominee.

    Otherwise, I think you need to look a bit further. What about Krysten Sisnema? Or Tammy Baldwin? Or Rahm Emmanuel? Or perhaps Amy Klobuchar?

    I think I'd be selling AOC, Biden and Buttigieg.

    Rahm Emmanuel, a psychotic bruiser who would be backed by Obama, would be my outside tip for 2024. Especially if he doesn't get the China Ambassador job.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,437
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re Democratic nominee 2024:

    See Biden trip? He's probably not going to be the candidate in three and a half years time.

    5/2 is a 40% chance. That seems too much for a 78 year old, who seems to already be struggling.

    So, who to replace him?

    AOC? No appeal beyond New York, San Francisco and... and... some other place I can't think of.
    Buttigieg? I think he needs to be elected to something bigger than Mayor of South Bend first.

    Harris is a terrible campaigner, but gets first dibs. If the next three and a half years is sunshine and honey for the US, then she is the nominee.

    Otherwise, I think you need to look a bit further. What about Krysten Sisnema? Or Tammy Baldwin? Or Rahm Emmanuel? Or perhaps Amy Klobuchar?

    I think I'd be selling AOC, Biden and Buttigieg.

    Rahm Emmanuel, a psychotic bruiser who would be backed by Obama, would be my outside tip for 2024. Especially if he doesn't get the China Ambassador job.
    Another outside bet: look at the Democratic Senate leadership.

    There's Schumer (no), Klobuchar (maybe), Warren (probably not) and... Catherine Cortez Mastro. Hispanic. Thinks better on her feet than Harris. Ambitious. And from a swing state.

    She might be worth a small flutter if you can get triple digit odds for 2024.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 6,630
    rcs1000 said:

    Re Democratic nominee 2024:

    See Biden trip? He's probably not going to be the candidate in three and a half years time.

    5/2 is a 40% chance. That seems too much for a 78 year old, who seems to already be struggling.

    So, who to replace him?

    AOC? No appeal beyond New York, San Francisco and... and... some other place I can't think of.
    Buttigieg? I think he needs to be elected to something bigger than Mayor of South Bend first.

    Harris is a terrible campaigner, but gets first dibs. If the next three and a half years is sunshine and honey for the US, then she is the nominee.

    Otherwise, I think you need to look a bit further. What about Krysten Sisnema? Or Tammy Baldwin? Or Rahm Emmanuel? Or perhaps Amy Klobuchar?

    I think I'd be selling AOC, Biden and Buttigieg.

    Kamala Harris might be the incumbent president by this time so I'd want to price that in before backing any other candidate.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,238
    AOC has the presence and the profile to be a serious contender. But she’ll need to perform a delicate pivot rightwards towards middle America if she’s to stand a realistic chance. The question is whether she’s prepared to do that. I suspect she’s ambitious enough.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,437

    rcs1000 said:

    Re Democratic nominee 2024:

    See Biden trip? He's probably not going to be the candidate in three and a half years time.

    5/2 is a 40% chance. That seems too much for a 78 year old, who seems to already be struggling.

    So, who to replace him?

    AOC? No appeal beyond New York, San Francisco and... and... some other place I can't think of.
    Buttigieg? I think he needs to be elected to something bigger than Mayor of South Bend first.

    Harris is a terrible campaigner, but gets first dibs. If the next three and a half years is sunshine and honey for the US, then she is the nominee.

    Otherwise, I think you need to look a bit further. What about Krysten Sisnema? Or Tammy Baldwin? Or Rahm Emmanuel? Or perhaps Amy Klobuchar?

    I think I'd be selling AOC, Biden and Buttigieg.

    Kamala Harris might be the incumbent president by this time so I'd want to price that in before backing any other candidate.
    I wouldn't sell her.

    I'd sell AOC, Biden and Buttigieg. (Numbers two, three and four in the betting.)
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re Democratic nominee 2024:

    See Biden trip? He's probably not going to be the candidate in three and a half years time.

    5/2 is a 40% chance. That seems too much for a 78 year old, who seems to already be struggling.

    So, who to replace him?

    AOC? No appeal beyond New York, San Francisco and... and... some other place I can't think of.
    Buttigieg? I think he needs to be elected to something bigger than Mayor of South Bend first.

    Harris is a terrible campaigner, but gets first dibs. If the next three and a half years is sunshine and honey for the US, then she is the nominee.

    Otherwise, I think you need to look a bit further. What about Krysten Sisnema? Or Tammy Baldwin? Or Rahm Emmanuel? Or perhaps Amy Klobuchar?

    I think I'd be selling AOC, Biden and Buttigieg.

    Rahm Emmanuel, a psychotic bruiser who would be backed by Obama, would be my outside tip for 2024. Especially if he doesn't get the China Ambassador job.
    Would he be backed by Obama?

    Obama is very careful with his endorsements. He can't go throwing around endorsements to losers - that's burning political capital. He might give some modest encouragement but he's not going to weigh in until it's fairly clear how the wind is blowing.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 30,577
    Good piece, for the most-of-us who find the Scottish row somewhat confusing.

    https://capx.co/is-this-the-moment-the-snp-starts-to-lose-its-grip/

    Covering the Alex Salmond/Nicola Sturgeon scandal feels like being a reporter tasked with covering a match between two teams for whom one has little sympathy in a slow-moving, slightly arcane sport for which one is not an enthusiast.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376
    edited March 20
    AOC is a Trump-style politician (in terms of dogmatism, arrogance, rudeness, contempt for democracy etc) with female genitals. She might well run but God help us all if she is the best the USA can come up with.

    If the left are looking for a young standard bearer a more realistic one, not mentioned here, would be Jon Ossoff. He has more campaigning experience than Buttigieg, more appeal than Harris and certainly he’s demonstrated his ability to reach out to voters to win against the odds.

    But my instinct is it will be Harris, quite possibly as a one-year incumbent.
  • The left's trouble getting the nomination in 2024 is that their whole argument in 2020 is the Democrats would get nowhere with a cautious moderate and needed to respond in kind - a radical Democrat to take on a Trump GOP.

    But they were wrong. Biden won the Presidency, and tended to outperform radical congressional candidates in doing so. So, for the time being, the electability debate has been won. Now that could change if 2022 is very bad for Democrats - they are likely to lose the House, but if they lost it badly plus the Senate in spite of a good map, that creates an argument for radicals. At the moment, though, the moderate wing is in a strong position.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re Democratic nominee 2024:

    See Biden trip? He's probably not going to be the candidate in three and a half years time.

    5/2 is a 40% chance. That seems too much for a 78 year old, who seems to already be struggling.

    So, who to replace him?

    AOC? No appeal beyond New York, San Francisco and... and... some other place I can't think of.
    Buttigieg? I think he needs to be elected to something bigger than Mayor of South Bend first.

    Harris is a terrible campaigner, but gets first dibs. If the next three and a half years is sunshine and honey for the US, then she is the nominee.

    Otherwise, I think you need to look a bit further. What about Krysten Sisnema? Or Tammy Baldwin? Or Rahm Emmanuel? Or perhaps Amy Klobuchar?

    I think I'd be selling AOC, Biden and Buttigieg.

    Kamala Harris might be the incumbent president by this time so I'd want to price that in before backing any other candidate.
    I wouldn't sell her.

    I'd sell AOC, Biden and Buttigieg. (Numbers two, three and four in the betting.)
    You sell people? You are no better than a common slaver and must be cancelled at once.

    Said AOC.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 6,488
    AOC (she even has a 'brand') has absolutely stellar social media engagement numbers and is the Queen of Clapback. That's probably going to matter even more in 2024 than it did in 2020. She'd be a good Veep pick for Harris.
  • On Buttigieg, I don't agree with Robert's point he needs higher elected office.

    He doesn't need to prove his campaigning credentials - his 2020 campaign is unarguably the one that beat expectations more than any other. He does need to prove he can perform in high office... but he has that chance as Transportation Secretary, which is a much bigger deal and more high profile position than that of a standard Congressman or Senator.

    I don't think he'll stand in 2024 - he's got loads of time, demographic change makes his sexuality less electorally difficult over time, and he'll probably do a good deal with the current VP. But he doesn't require higher elected office.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,893
    In an unexpected twist it’s Ivanka for the Dems vs. Don jnr for the GOP.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,052
    I wish we had her. What a dearth of leaders we have at the moment just when we need better
  • Dura_Ace said:

    AOC (she even has a 'brand') has absolutely stellar social media engagement numbers and is the Queen of Clapback. That's probably going to matter even more in 2024 than it did in 2020. She'd be a good Veep pick for Harris.

    I'm afraid an all female ticket is still quite a risk, and Harris is a cautious moderate. There is still resistance to the idea of a female President and, sad though it is in many ways, I think she'll go for a safe, white male choice (as indeed Obama did in 2008).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376
    Dura_Ace said:

    AOC (she even has a 'brand') has absolutely stellar social media engagement numbers and is the Queen of Clapback. That's probably going to matter even more in 2024 than it did in 2020. She'd be a good Veep pick for Harris.

    I would have thought unless he messes up his Transport brief in spectacular fashion Buttigieg is an altogether more likely VP pick for President Harris.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695
    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, for the most-of-us who find the Scottish row somewhat confusing.

    https://capx.co/is-this-the-moment-the-snp-starts-to-lose-its-grip/

    Covering the Alex Salmond/Nicola Sturgeon scandal feels like being a reporter tasked with covering a match between two teams for whom one has little sympathy in a slow-moving, slightly arcane sport for which one is not an enthusiast.

    What? This a five-day test - on a turning pitch.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,893
    This discussion cements my view that the Dems look very week going into 2024.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376
    Jonathan said:

    This discussion cements my view that the Dems look very week going into 2024.

    They’re fortunate then that the Republicans look totally bereft.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, for the most-of-us who find the Scottish row somewhat confusing.

    https://capx.co/is-this-the-moment-the-snp-starts-to-lose-its-grip/

    Covering the Alex Salmond/Nicola Sturgeon scandal feels like being a reporter tasked with covering a match between two teams for whom one has little sympathy in a slow-moving, slightly arcane sport for which one is not an enthusiast.

    What? This a five-day test - on a turning pitch.
    With multiple spinners on display.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,052
    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, for the most-of-us who find the Scottish row somewhat confusing.

    https://capx.co/is-this-the-moment-the-snp-starts-to-lose-its-grip/

    Covering the Alex Salmond/Nicola Sturgeon scandal feels like being a reporter tasked with covering a match between two teams for whom one has little sympathy in a slow-moving, slightly arcane sport for which one is not an enthusiast.

    Isn't CAPX the online house mag for UKIP?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,052
    Scott_xP said:
    It'll happen but I think he'll choose his moment more wisely
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 55,280
    edited March 20
    Annoyed.

    Saw, on Ladbrokes, Williams at 3.2 to be bottom of the constructors and a special to be 9th or better at 1.8 (so you could back both and be guaranteed a profit). The latter has been suspended.

    I don't mind bookies realising that sort of thing but leaving the market up only for a bet to not go through and only then appear suspended is irksome.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,092

    On Buttigieg, I don't agree with Robert's point he needs higher elected office.

    He doesn't need to prove his campaigning credentials - his 2020 campaign is unarguably the one that beat expectations more than any other. He does need to prove he can perform in high office... but he has that chance as Transportation Secretary, which is a much bigger deal and more high profile position than that of a standard Congressman or Senator.

    I don't think he'll stand in 2024 - he's got loads of time, demographic change makes his sexuality less electorally difficult over time, and he'll probably do a good deal with the current VP. But he doesn't require higher elected office.

    He seems to fit the role of Harris' VP when she runs. Which is probably 2028.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 5,008
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/20/chinas-first-local-covid-case-since-february-had-been-vaccinated-state-media

    Including this:

    "“The efficacy rate of domestic vaccines in preventing severe cases in China is more than 90%, and the overall protection rate is more than 70%,” said Zeng, adding that coronavirus treatment hospitals are high-risk areas where vaccinated medical staff cannot rule out the possibility of infection."

    So what am i missing? If there have been no locally transmitted cases (let alone serious ones) since February, and you take at face value their numbers from before that, how do you come up with the efficacy rates in Chinaof vaccines in preventing serious or non-serious cases?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,639
    AOC has charisma and presence, brains and style and wouldn't she be great in the debates!

    I cannot see her picking up the redneck vote, but she has ambition and would get a lot of support from activists.

    It's too early for me to bet on the next race, but AOC has a star quality that is very rare in politics.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 7,798
    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece, for the most-of-us who find the Scottish row somewhat confusing.

    https://capx.co/is-this-the-moment-the-snp-starts-to-lose-its-grip/

    Covering the Alex Salmond/Nicola Sturgeon scandal feels like being a reporter tasked with covering a match between two teams for whom one has little sympathy in a slow-moving, slightly arcane sport for which one is not an enthusiast.

    Isn't CAPX the online house mag for UKIP?
    No. Capitalist ≠ nativist hard right. Though FWIW some of the recent content (it both commissions its own and acts as an aggregator) would not look out of place in The Guardian...

    https://capx.co/the-rout-of-the-covid-conspiracy-theorists/

    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/biden-administration-should-end-war-on-drugs-by-cesar-gaviria-2021-03

    https://capx.co/mishandling-of-foi-requests-is-a-threat-to-democracy/

    https://thecritic.co.uk/lockdown-has-fostered-a-shadow-pandemic-of-violence-against-women/
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 6,488
    Sanders will almost certainly run again. He'll only be 83. #feelthebern

    Ultimately the Dems will have to go with whomever is best placed to beat Trump. Unless the economy is completely fucked that's probably Harris.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,639
    Jonathan said:

    This discussion cements my view that the Dems look very week going into 2024.

    There is a certain tendency to assume that the players in 2024 will be the same as 2020.

    Sure we had heard of Biden in 2016, and Sanders, Warren too, but who had heard of Buttigeig, O'Rorke, Harris or Klobuchar?

    It isn't quite true that there are no second acts in American lives, but second chances are rare.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 40,058
    Kate Bingham: ‘At the moment there is 100 per cent protection against death, across all the vaccines and across all the variants,’

    Telegraph interview.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 9,943

    Totally disagree. Biden will not be the 2024 candidate. He is already being hidden away from press questions. He referred to Harris as the President this past week. He slipped 3 times on the steps to Air Force 1 - also this week. That after he had set off purposefully with his mind set on one thing - "just make it up those steps..." It was painful to watch.

    2 months into his term, 46 more to go. 46 gruelling, get-me-outta-here months. (Although I expect it to be Acting President Kamala Harris under the 25th at some point within those 46...)

    I really don't see a little confusion as such a big deal, even in the POTUS, when the alternative was such a volatile, deranged narcissist.

    Addressing the VP as President seems such a minor infringement of sanity when his predecessor was earnestly advising Americans to introvenously self-medicate against Covid using domestic cleaning products.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,381
    America seems to love rule by geriatrics. Talking of which Pelosi is 81 this year and frankly looks it. AOC should be focusing all of her efforts in replacing Nancy as Speaker. Its a much easier target, way more secure and means she really doesn't need to worry too much what those rather dull flyover states think. Who knows, when she is suitably geriatric herself, in 30-40 years, she might have a go at POTUS then.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 9,943
    Roger said:

    Scott_xP said:
    It'll happen but I think he'll choose his moment more wisely
    Maybe on the eve of Gove (and Vine) challenging Johnson for the premiership.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376
    edited March 20

    Kate Bingham: ‘At the moment there is 100 per cent protection against death, across all the vaccines and across all the variants,’

    Telegraph interview.

    That’s the key, and that’s why Europe are yet again being foolish by prioritising total immunity for a few over substantial immunity for the many. It’s not just their inability to buy the damn stuff.

    Admittedly, when Britain declared it would try that many, including many on here and including me, were sceptical, but practical experience has seen the government totally vindicated.

    No other nation - and certainly not the EU - has any excuse for going down another route given the data we now have.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,639

    Kate Bingham: ‘At the moment there is 100 per cent protection against death, across all the vaccines and across all the variants,’

    Telegraph interview.

    That seems a little bit over egging it. We see from Israel that while most deaths are in the unvaccinated, there are some in the fully vaccinated.



  • MattWMattW Posts: 6,850
    Morning. Thanks for the piece, David.

    What's @Chris referring to below - has he told us yet?

    We know that for some vaccines young people react more due to their stronger immune systems. And that vaccinating those most likely to die must have been prioritised.

    And it may be that for lower risk groups the reaction consequences may outweigh the benefits of a vaccine.

    I see no necessary problem.

    BTW Good interview with Kate Bingham
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/work/kate-bingham-exclusive-interview-eu-leaders-undermining-vaccine/
    Charles said:

    Chris said:

    Charles said:

    Chris said:

    When the news is grim, it's nice to have a bit of humour.

    Kate Bingham, the former UK vaccine supremo, is holding forth about the irresponsibility of European leaders in undermining confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine.

    This is the same woman who publicly said we shouldn't vaccinate healthy younger people for fear of side effects!

    It’s the difference between identifying a specific product and a general statement

    No one in the industry has an issue with the concept of risk/benefit. All pharmaceutical products, including vaccines, have side effects. The question is whether the benefits outweigh those risks.

    The answers may differ on an individual vs a population level
    Astonishing that anyone would defend what Bingham said about its being undesirable to vaccinate the whole population - with any vaccine - for fear of serious side-effects.

    But I should just stop being astonished at people's stupidity over COVID-19.
    Why don’t you post the precise quote you are referring to? Kate may have been answering a specific question.

    But nothing I have said is untrue. All medical intervention is a trade off.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 9,943
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sanders will almost certainly run again. He'll only be 83. #feelthebern

    Ultimately the Dems will have to go with whomever is best placed to beat Trump. Unless the economy is completely fucked that's probably Harris.

    I am not sure Trump Snr. will be in the frame come 2024. There are nonetheless a whole pack of unpleasant GOP alternatives to Trump including Pompeo and Trump Snr.'s older male spawn.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,052
    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    This discussion cements my view that the Dems look very week going into 2024.

    There is a certain tendency to assume that the players in 2024 will be the same as 2020.

    Sure we had heard of Biden in 2016, and Sanders, Warren too, but who had heard of Buttigeig, O'Rorke, Harris or Klobuchar?

    It isn't quite true that there are no second acts in American lives, but second chances are rare.
    I was just going to say what a good idea to use a selfie as your avatar and then you changed it
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,381
    Foxy said:

    Kate Bingham: ‘At the moment there is 100 per cent protection against death, across all the vaccines and across all the variants,’

    Telegraph interview.

    That seems a little bit over egging it. We see from Israel that while most deaths are in the unvaccinated, there are some in the fully vaccinated.



    If the criteria is deaths within 28 days of a +ve result the question in Israel (and increasingly here) is going to be whether those deaths are with Covid or of Covid.

    We really need to start looking at that quite carefully. The evidence seems to be accumulating that the vaccines do not completely prevent you catching Covid but they prevent you from getting ill of it. Some seem to have enough Covid to infect others which is a problem until we are all vaccinated. Once we are this virus will hopefully become a background nuisance for those already seriously ill.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 40,058
    Foxy said:

    Kate Bingham: ‘At the moment there is 100 per cent protection against death, across all the vaccines and across all the variants,’

    Telegraph interview.

    That seems a little bit over egging it. We see from Israel that while most deaths are in the unvaccinated, there are some in the fully vaccinated.



    Yes, it struck me as a bold statement. Possibly at some point there will be a concrete case of a UK death after a two dose vaccination. Hope not.

    Of course with the very frail with multiple conditions even a 99.99% vaccine may not be enough?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,951
    FPT - thanks for answers on Lenny Henry.

    I didn't know about the Lord of the Rings TV series. I will look out for it.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 40,058
    ydoethur said:

    Kate Bingham: ‘At the moment there is 100 per cent protection against death, across all the vaccines and across all the variants,’

    Telegraph interview.

    That’s the key, and that’s why Europe are yet again being foolish by prioritising total immunity for a few over substantial immunity for the many. It’s not just their inability to buy the damn stuff.

    Admittedly, when Britain declared it would try that many, including many on here and including me, were sceptical, but practical experience has seen the government totally vindicated.

    No other nation - and certainly not the EU - has any excuse for going down another route given the data we now have.
    The FR website on vaccines quoted earlier in thread says: "two doses spaced three weeks apart are needed to vaccinate a patient."
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,639
    Roger said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    This discussion cements my view that the Dems look very week going into 2024.

    There is a certain tendency to assume that the players in 2024 will be the same as 2020.

    Sure we had heard of Biden in 2016, and Sanders, Warren too, but who had heard of Buttigeig, O'Rorke, Harris or Klobuchar?

    It isn't quite true that there are no second acts in American lives, but second chances are rare.
    I was just going to say what a good idea to use a selfie as your avatar and then you changed it
    Just feeling a bit more Puritanical this morning, in the long and honourable tradition of English Radicalism. 🙂
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,951
    I can't see AOC holding Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Michigan if she does get the democratic nomination. And she'd possibly lose more on top, unless Trump runs again.

    She's short because she has a high profile on social media and makes memorable speeches and interventions. A lucid and charismatic RLB. That doesn't a winner make, even if the base love it.

    Clear lay.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,092

    Foxy said:

    Kate Bingham: ‘At the moment there is 100 per cent protection against death, across all the vaccines and across all the variants,’

    Telegraph interview.

    That seems a little bit over egging it. We see from Israel that while most deaths are in the unvaccinated, there are some in the fully vaccinated.



    Yes, it struck me as a bold statement. Possibly at some point there will be a concrete case of a UK death after a two dose vaccination. Hope not.

    Of course with the very frail with multiple conditions even a 99.99% vaccine may not be enough?
    The vaccines might prevent all deaths FROM Covid, they won't produce immortality.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 7,798
    edited March 20
    Foxy said:

    Kate Bingham: ‘At the moment there is 100 per cent protection against death, across all the vaccines and across all the variants,’

    Telegraph interview.

    That seems a little bit over egging it. We see from Israel that while most deaths are in the unvaccinated, there are some in the fully vaccinated.
    It's possible that this is factually correct though. Have any Covid deaths in persons who have had the first vaccination, plus three weeks before infection, been confirmed yet?
    ydoethur said:

    That’s the key, and that’s why Europe are yet again being foolish by prioritising total immunity for a few over substantial immunity for the many. It’s not just their inability to buy the damn stuff.

    Admittedly, when Britain declared it would try that many, including many on here and including me, were sceptical, but practical experience has seen the government totally vindicated.

    No other nation - and certainly not the EU - has any excuse for going down another route given the data we now have.

    Recent events suggest that many, if not most, other European countries have not learned from their own past experiences, repeating mistakes in the same way as the UK Government appears to have done before Christmas. The French attempt to impose lockdown in Paris but not in much of the rest of the country - and announcing it well in advance, so that a large chunk of the population then had time to get in their cars or board trains and flee, spreading the new disease wave everywhere else - is a classic case in point.

    Why, therefore, they would pay any attention to the vaccine rollout anywhere else (and especially in perfidious Albion,) let alone try to draw any lessons from it, is quite beyond me.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,381
    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    Kate Bingham: ‘At the moment there is 100 per cent protection against death, across all the vaccines and across all the variants,’

    Telegraph interview.

    That seems a little bit over egging it. We see from Israel that while most deaths are in the unvaccinated, there are some in the fully vaccinated.



    Yes, it struck me as a bold statement. Possibly at some point there will be a concrete case of a UK death after a two dose vaccination. Hope not.

    Of course with the very frail with multiple conditions even a 99.99% vaccine may not be enough?
    The vaccines might prevent all deaths FROM Covid, they won't produce immortality.
    Bugger.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 9,428
    ydoethur said:

    AOC is a Trump-style politician (in terms of dogmatism, arrogance, rudeness, contempt for democracy etc) with female genitals. She might well run but God help us all if she is the best the USA can come up with.

    If the left are looking for a young standard bearer a more realistic one, not mentioned here, would be Jon Ossoff. He has more campaigning experience than Buttigieg, more appeal than Harris and certainly he’s demonstrated his ability to reach out to voters to win against the odds.

    But my instinct is it will be Harris, quite possibly as a one-year incumbent.

    I don't think it will be AOC and I don't think it would be much good for the US if it was, but it would be a laugh to see the other half of the electorate foaming at the mouth as one half did when Trump was elected.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 6,850

    FPT - thanks for answers on Lenny Henry.

    I didn't know about the Lord of the Rings TV series. I will look out for it.

    Game of Thrones in Numenor, with elves.

    And BAME people on the "good" side.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 55,280
    Mr. L, Tithonus suggests immortality is not necessarily a good thing.
  • Totally disagree. Biden will not be the 2024 candidate. He is already being hidden away from press questions. He referred to Harris as the President this past week. He slipped 3 times on the steps to Air Force 1 - also this week. That after he had set off purposefully with his mind set on one thing - "just make it up those steps..." It was painful to watch.

    2 months into his term, 46 more to go. 46 gruelling, get-me-outta-here months. (Although I expect it to be Acting President Kamala Harris under the 25th at some point within those 46...)

    I really don't see a little confusion as such a big deal, even in the POTUS, when the alternative was such a volatile, deranged narcissist.

    Addressing the VP as President seems such a minor infringement of sanity when his predecessor was earnestly advising Americans to introvenously self-medicate against Covid using domestic cleaning products.
    A minor correction, but he actually said doctors should consider how bleach might be used I treatments. He did not advise self-medication with domestic cleaning fluids.

    I don't say that to defend Trump. It's just the truth is mad enough not to require embellishment.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 1,034

    I can't see AOC holding Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Michigan if she does get the democratic nomination. And she'd possibly lose more on top, unless Trump runs again.

    She's short because she has a high profile on social media and makes memorable speeches and interventions. A lucid and charismatic RLB. That doesn't a winner make, even if the base love it.

    Clear lay.

    She will never be nominee. Too divisive.

    It’s AOBs socialism that actually cost Dems a bigger win in 2020.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,052

    Totally disagree. Biden will not be the 2024 candidate. He is already being hidden away from press questions. He referred to Harris as the President this past week. He slipped 3 times on the steps to Air Force 1 - also this week. That after he had set off purposefully with his mind set on one thing - "just make it up those steps..." It was painful to watch.

    2 months into his term, 46 more to go. 46 gruelling, get-me-outta-here months. (Although I expect it to be Acting President Kamala Harris under the 25th at some point within those 46...)

    I really don't see a little confusion as such a big deal, even in the POTUS, when the alternative was such a volatile, deranged narcissist.

    Addressing the VP as President seems such a minor infringement of sanity when his predecessor was earnestly advising Americans to introvenously self-medicate against Covid using domestic cleaning products.
    You make a fair point. How loopy would he have to be to reach the level of his predecessor self medicating with Domestos?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxDKW75ueIU
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 9,943
    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    Kate Bingham: ‘At the moment there is 100 per cent protection against death, across all the vaccines and across all the variants,’

    Telegraph interview.

    That seems a little bit over egging it. We see from Israel that while most deaths are in the unvaccinated, there are some in the fully vaccinated.



    Yes, it struck me as a bold statement. Possibly at some point there will be a concrete case of a UK death after a two dose vaccination. Hope not.

    Of course with the very frail with multiple conditions even a 99.99% vaccine may not be enough?
    The vaccines might prevent all deaths FROM Covid, they won't produce immortality.
    That is such a cop out by Kate.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 4,927
    The virus has a steep age gradient with respect to severity. That is a datum. Now there are hints that the vaccine does too. If the immune response in younger people can be excessive then shouldn't it be possible to titrate the doses according to the age of the recipient?
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 7,798
    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    This discussion cements my view that the Dems look very week going into 2024.

    There is a certain tendency to assume that the players in 2024 will be the same as 2020.

    Sure we had heard of Biden in 2016, and Sanders, Warren too, but who had heard of Buttigeig, O'Rorke, Harris or Klobuchar?

    It isn't quite true that there are no second acts in American lives, but second chances are rare.
    I was just going to say what a good idea to use a selfie as your avatar and then you changed it
    Just feeling a bit more Puritanical this morning, in the long and honourable tradition of English Radicalism. 🙂
    What did I read Puritanism defined as the other day - the desperate fear that somebody, somewhere, might be having fun? Or is that socialism?

    Anyway, hopefully it will pass for you. :smiley:
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 13,428
    Morning all. Let's just feel some contentment in the knowledge that there is a very good chance that Bozo feels absolutely shite this morning after his dose of AZ yesterday.

    I look forward to feeling just as rough on Tuesday.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 9,943

    Totally disagree. Biden will not be the 2024 candidate. He is already being hidden away from press questions. He referred to Harris as the President this past week. He slipped 3 times on the steps to Air Force 1 - also this week. That after he had set off purposefully with his mind set on one thing - "just make it up those steps..." It was painful to watch.

    2 months into his term, 46 more to go. 46 gruelling, get-me-outta-here months. (Although I expect it to be Acting President Kamala Harris under the 25th at some point within those 46...)

    I really don't see a little confusion as such a big deal, even in the POTUS, when the alternative was such a volatile, deranged narcissist.

    Addressing the VP as President seems such a minor infringement of sanity when his predecessor was earnestly advising Americans to introvenously self-medicate against Covid using domestic cleaning products.
    A minor correction, but he actually said doctors should consider how bleach might be used I treatments. He did not advise self-medication with domestic cleaning fluids.

    I don't say that to defend Trump. It's just the truth is mad enough not to require embellishment.
    However, several American citizens, I believe, did self-medicate with dire consequences after Dr Trump's intervention
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 8,020
    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    Kate Bingham: ‘At the moment there is 100 per cent protection against death, across all the vaccines and across all the variants,’

    Telegraph interview.

    That seems a little bit over egging it. We see from Israel that while most deaths are in the unvaccinated, there are some in the fully vaccinated.



    Yes, it struck me as a bold statement. Possibly at some point there will be a concrete case of a UK death after a two dose vaccination. Hope not.

    Of course with the very frail with multiple conditions even a 99.99% vaccine may not be enough?
    The vaccines might prevent all deaths FROM Covid, they won't produce immortality.
    Indeed. 28 day rule strikes again.

    It will be impossible to reach zero deaths on the official measure, because many elderly hosts will die of something else.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 1,034
    Scott_xP said:
    Inevitable? 😆

    Wee Krankie is safe as houses. She’ll just tough it out blaming bias opposition in hysterical election mode.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695
    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    Kate Bingham: ‘At the moment there is 100 per cent protection against death, across all the vaccines and across all the variants,’

    Telegraph interview.

    That seems a little bit over egging it. We see from Israel that while most deaths are in the unvaccinated, there are some in the fully vaccinated.



    Yes, it struck me as a bold statement. Possibly at some point there will be a concrete case of a UK death after a two dose vaccination. Hope not.

    Of course with the very frail with multiple conditions even a 99.99% vaccine may not be enough?
    The vaccines might prevent all deaths FROM Covid, they won't produce immortality.
    Thank God. How smug would those jabbed oldsters be?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,381
    edited March 20

    Mr. L, Tithonus suggests immortality is not necessarily a good thing.

    Indeed but he just needed a better lawyer to design some exclusion clauses for him. Always take proper legal advice before entering into an important agreement. Ideally from me. Very reasonable rates. 😎
  • I can't see AOC holding Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Michigan if she does get the democratic nomination. And she'd possibly lose more on top, unless Trump runs again.

    She's short because she has a high profile on social media and makes memorable speeches and interventions. A lucid and charismatic RLB. That doesn't a winner make, even if the base love it.

    Clear lay.

    But the odds quoted are on her getting the Democratic nomination. So she may well be a lay on the Presidency market. But that doesn't necessarily transfer to the nomination market being discussed (albeit she'll face electability questions in the primaries).
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 7,798
    geoffw said:

    The virus has a steep age gradient with respect to severity. That is a datum. Now there are hints that the vaccine does too. If the immune response in younger people can be excessive then shouldn't it be possible to titrate the doses according to the age of the recipient?

    It would be hugely helpful if some kind of research were going on into this right now. If young recipients could be proven to require smaller doses then it would obviously reduce pressure on supply (which, if we make the reasonable assumption that supply will be a huge constraining factor for the foreseeable future,) would significantly accelerate the rollout.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,639
    edited March 20

    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    This discussion cements my view that the Dems look very week going into 2024.

    There is a certain tendency to assume that the players in 2024 will be the same as 2020.

    Sure we had heard of Biden in 2016, and Sanders, Warren too, but who had heard of Buttigeig, O'Rorke, Harris or Klobuchar?

    It isn't quite true that there are no second acts in American lives, but second chances are rare.
    I was just going to say what a good idea to use a selfie as your avatar and then you changed it
    Just feeling a bit more Puritanical this morning, in the long and honourable tradition of English Radicalism. 🙂
    What did I read Puritanism defined as the other day - the desperate fear that somebody, somewhere, might be having fun? Or is that socialism?

    Anyway, hopefully it will pass for you. :smiley:
    No, Puritanism is about the inner life, standing apart from the corruption of the world.

    There are a lot of secular Puritans now, particularly but not exclusively on the Left and Greens.

    It is a contrasting strand of English tradition to the aristocratic cavaliers. Different labels now but the same tradition. One of my favourite Cromwell quotes on the subject:

    "I had rather have a plain, russet-coated Captain, that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that which you call a Gentle-man and is nothing else."

    And that is how he won...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,052
    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    This discussion cements my view that the Dems look very week going into 2024.

    There is a certain tendency to assume that the players in 2024 will be the same as 2020.

    Sure we had heard of Biden in 2016, and Sanders, Warren too, but who had heard of Buttigeig, O'Rorke, Harris or Klobuchar?

    It isn't quite true that there are no second acts in American lives, but second chances are rare.
    I was just going to say what a good idea to use a selfie as your avatar and then you changed it
    Just feeling a bit more Puritanical this morning, in the long and honourable tradition of English Radicalism. 🙂
    Or 'Bronze Lives Matter' as they said of Priti Patel in the Now Show
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 40,058

    Morning all. Let's just feel some contentment in the knowledge that there is a very good chance that Bozo feels absolutely shite this morning after his dose of AZ yesterday.

    I look forward to feeling just as rough on Tuesday.

    My experience was it was just over 24 hours later when it hit.

    The tweet of PM went out yesterday evening, so I reckon he'll start to feel shit sometime in the 2nd half of the rugby.

    Note how the PM was jabbed on a Friday evening. So weekend to recover at Chequers?
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 1,034
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re Democratic nominee 2024:

    See Biden trip? He's probably not going to be the candidate in three and a half years time.

    5/2 is a 40% chance. That seems too much for a 78 year old, who seems to already be struggling.

    So, who to replace him?

    AOC? No appeal beyond New York, San Francisco and... and... some other place I can't think of.
    Buttigieg? I think he needs to be elected to something bigger than Mayor of South Bend first.

    Harris is a terrible campaigner, but gets first dibs. If the next three and a half years is sunshine and honey for the US, then she is the nominee.

    Otherwise, I think you need to look a bit further. What about Krysten Sisnema? Or Tammy Baldwin? Or Rahm Emmanuel? Or perhaps Amy Klobuchar?

    I think I'd be selling AOC, Biden and Buttigieg.

    Rahm Emmanuel, a psychotic bruiser who would be backed by Obama, would be my outside tip for 2024. Especially if he doesn't get the China Ambassador job.
    Another outside bet: look at the Democratic Senate leadership.

    There's Schumer (no), Klobuchar (maybe), Warren (probably not) and... Catherine Cortez Mastro. Hispanic. Thinks better on her feet than Harris. Ambitious. And from a swing state.

    She might be worth a small flutter if you can get triple digit odds for 2024.
    She looks like Scary Anna from W1A. 😧
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 12,663
    gealbhan said:

    Wee Krankie is safe as houses. She’ll just tough it out blaming bias opposition in hysterical election mode.

    She is not at all safe. The Eck faction is not going to lie down and let her get on with it.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 40,058
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Kate Bingham: ‘At the moment there is 100 per cent protection against death, across all the vaccines and across all the variants,’

    Telegraph interview.

    That seems a little bit over egging it. We see from Israel that while most deaths are in the unvaccinated, there are some in the fully vaccinated.



    If the criteria is deaths within 28 days of a +ve result the question in Israel (and increasingly here) is going to be whether those deaths are with Covid or of Covid.

    We really need to start looking at that quite carefully. The evidence seems to be accumulating that the vaccines do not completely prevent you catching Covid but they prevent you from getting ill of it. Some seem to have enough Covid to infect others which is a problem until we are all vaccinated. Once we are this virus will hopefully become a background nuisance for those already seriously ill.
    Kate Bingham makes the point in that interview that she hopes flu and covid jabs will be done as one in medium term future. Longer term - get rid of jab altogether and use a pill.

    It struck me that this might mean fewer deaths from flu in future, as more people are likely to take the new double jab after all we have been through in last year.
  • gealbhan said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Inevitable? 😆

    Wee Krankie is safe as houses. She’ll just tough it out blaming bias opposition in hysterical election mode.
    It's not the opposition in front of her that's the problem, it's the enemy behind her.

    She'll survive the week and the election. But the tide within her party does appear to have turned against her. She's lost the sheen of competence and invincibility, and it does appear to be when rather than if. I'm reminded of Blair in 2005 - a fairly comfortable election win but clearly heading to the exit door.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 1,034

    Morning all. Let's just feel some contentment in the knowledge that there is a very good chance that Bozo feels absolutely shite this morning after his dose of AZ yesterday.

    I look forward to feeling just as rough on Tuesday.

    My experience was it was just over 24 hours later when it hit.

    The tweet of PM went out yesterday evening, so I reckon he'll start to feel shit sometime in the 2nd half of the rugby.

    Note how the PM was jabbed on a Friday evening. So weekend to recover at Chequers?
    Yes they timed it for Friday for feet up weekend. Sensible.

    And if you previously had COVID you can feel even worse after a jab?

    Is the continents third wave coming here?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,244
    ydoethur said:

    AOC is a Trump-style politician (in terms of dogmatism, arrogance, rudeness, contempt for democracy etc) with female genitals. She might well run but God help us all if she is the best the USA can come up with.

    If the left are looking for a young standard bearer a more realistic one, not mentioned here, would be Jon Ossoff. He has more campaigning experience than Buttigieg, more appeal than Harris and certainly he’s demonstrated his ability to reach out to voters to win against the odds.

    But my instinct is it will be Harris, quite possibly as a one-year incumbent.

    While ideological, since entering Congress, she appears to be considerably more pragmatic than you suggest. And no ruder (and usually with every bit as good justification) than you are.
    I’m not sure where you get the contempt for democracy thing ? Or indeed the Trump comparison.

    I don’t share her politics, but she’s the smartest socialist I’ve seen for a long time.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 8,020

    geoffw said:

    The virus has a steep age gradient with respect to severity. That is a datum. Now there are hints that the vaccine does too. If the immune response in younger people can be excessive then shouldn't it be possible to titrate the doses according to the age of the recipient?

    It would be hugely helpful if some kind of research were going on into this right now. If young recipients could be proven to require smaller doses then it would obviously reduce pressure on supply (which, if we make the reasonable assumption that supply will be a huge constraining factor for the foreseeable future,) would significantly accelerate the rollout.
    Very true. See also, women and men. There seems to be anecdotal evidence that the immune response is greater in females (which might simply be down to body size and physiology). But it needs to be looked into.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,381

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Kate Bingham: ‘At the moment there is 100 per cent protection against death, across all the vaccines and across all the variants,’

    Telegraph interview.

    That seems a little bit over egging it. We see from Israel that while most deaths are in the unvaccinated, there are some in the fully vaccinated.



    If the criteria is deaths within 28 days of a +ve result the question in Israel (and increasingly here) is going to be whether those deaths are with Covid or of Covid.

    We really need to start looking at that quite carefully. The evidence seems to be accumulating that the vaccines do not completely prevent you catching Covid but they prevent you from getting ill of it. Some seem to have enough Covid to infect others which is a problem until we are all vaccinated. Once we are this virus will hopefully become a background nuisance for those already seriously ill.
    Kate Bingham makes the point in that interview that she hopes flu and covid jabs will be done as one in medium term future. Longer term - get rid of jab altogether and use a pill.

    It struck me that this might mean fewer deaths from flu in future, as more people are likely to take the new double jab after all we have been through in last year.
    Interesting. I can't read it because of paywall.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695

    Totally disagree. Biden will not be the 2024 candidate. He is already being hidden away from press questions. He referred to Harris as the President this past week. He slipped 3 times on the steps to Air Force 1 - also this week. That after he had set off purposefully with his mind set on one thing - "just make it up those steps..." It was painful to watch.

    2 months into his term, 46 more to go. 46 gruelling, get-me-outta-here months. (Although I expect it to be Acting President Kamala Harris under the 25th at some point within those 46...)

    I really don't see a little confusion as such a big deal, even in the POTUS, when the alternative was such a volatile, deranged narcissist.

    Addressing the VP as President seems such a minor infringement of sanity when his predecessor was earnestly advising Americans to introvenously self-medicate against Covid using domestic cleaning products.
    It's the narrative though: the leader of the Free World can't walk upstairs unaided. He is the perfect metaphor for America In Decline. Do you think China, Putin are looking at Biden and thinking "If we push the boundaries on our power, is he going to stand firm - when he can't stand up?"
  • MattWMattW Posts: 6,850
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Kate Bingham: ‘At the moment there is 100 per cent protection against death, across all the vaccines and across all the variants,’

    Telegraph interview.

    That seems a little bit over egging it. We see from Israel that while most deaths are in the unvaccinated, there are some in the fully vaccinated.



    If the criteria is deaths within 28 days of a +ve result the question in Israel (and increasingly here) is going to be whether those deaths are with Covid or of Covid.

    We really need to start looking at that quite carefully. The evidence seems to be accumulating that the vaccines do not completely prevent you catching Covid but they prevent you from getting ill of it. Some seem to have enough Covid to infect others which is a problem until we are all vaccinated. Once we are this virus will hopefully become a background nuisance for those already seriously ill.
    Kate Bingham makes the point in that interview that she hopes flu and covid jabs will be done as one in medium term future. Longer term - get rid of jab altogether and use a pill.

    It struck me that this might mean fewer deaths from flu in future, as more people are likely to take the new double jab after all we have been through in last year.
    Interesting. I can't read it because of paywall.
    Turn off Javascript is one way.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 16,093
    rcs1000 said:

    Re Democratic nominee 2024:

    See Biden trip? He's probably not going to be the candidate in three and a half years time.

    5/2 is a 40% chance. That seems too much for a 78 year old, who seems to already be struggling.

    So, who to replace him?

    AOC? No appeal beyond New York, San Francisco and... and... some other place I can't think of.
    Buttigieg? I think he needs to be elected to something bigger than Mayor of South Bend first.

    Harris is a terrible campaigner, but gets first dibs. If the next three and a half years is sunshine and honey for the US, then she is the nominee.

    Otherwise, I think you need to look a bit further. What about Krysten Sisnema? Or Tammy Baldwin? Or Rahm Emmanuel? Or perhaps Amy Klobuchar?

    I think I'd be selling AOC, Biden and Buttigieg.

    5/2 is a 28% chance. He was written off as semi-senile through the 2019-20 campaign and provided few fluffs. And even if he provides substantially more by 2024, the question is not whether you or I think he should run but whether he does.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 8,020

    Totally disagree. Biden will not be the 2024 candidate. He is already being hidden away from press questions. He referred to Harris as the President this past week. He slipped 3 times on the steps to Air Force 1 - also this week. That after he had set off purposefully with his mind set on one thing - "just make it up those steps..." It was painful to watch.

    2 months into his term, 46 more to go. 46 gruelling, get-me-outta-here months. (Although I expect it to be Acting President Kamala Harris under the 25th at some point within those 46...)

    I really don't see a little confusion as such a big deal, even in the POTUS, when the alternative was such a volatile, deranged narcissist.

    Addressing the VP as President seems such a minor infringement of sanity when his predecessor was earnestly advising Americans to introvenously self-medicate against Covid using domestic cleaning products.
    It's the narrative though: the leader of the Free World can't walk upstairs unaided. He is the perfect metaphor for America In Decline. Do you think China, Putin are looking at Biden and thinking "If we push the boundaries on our power, is he going to stand firm - when he can't stand up?"
    Dan Hodges made the point that you have to go back to Gerald Ford to find a president who hasn’t tripped on some official photocall. Several have tripped on the steps of AF1 apparently.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 6,850
    edited March 20
    Graphs to watch.

    For anyone wanting to keep track of how things are going to go in Mainland Europe, I'd suggest these two.

    People most vulnerable to COVID is people who have not had a single dose, and also to some extent people who have not had the condition.

    Either way, a lot of people will be dying soon, especially in the absence of pretty vicious lockdowns until perhaps May when another three or four times as many people have had a dose. A lot of people dying are locked in already by high case numbers, as we know from UK experience over Dec-Feb.






  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    AOC is a Trump-style politician (in terms of dogmatism, arrogance, rudeness, contempt for democracy etc) with female genitals. She might well run but God help us all if she is the best the USA can come up with.

    If the left are looking for a young standard bearer a more realistic one, not mentioned here, would be Jon Ossoff. He has more campaigning experience than Buttigieg, more appeal than Harris and certainly he’s demonstrated his ability to reach out to voters to win against the odds.

    But my instinct is it will be Harris, quite possibly as a one-year incumbent.

    While ideological, since entering Congress, she appears to be considerably more pragmatic than you suggest. And no ruder (and usually with every bit as good justification) than you are.
    I’m not sure where you get the contempt for democracy thing ? Or indeed the Trump comparison.

    I don’t share her politics, but she’s the smartest socialist I’ve seen for a long time.
    Puerto Rico.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 30,577

    Morning all. Let's just feel some contentment in the knowledge that there is a very good chance that Bozo feels absolutely shite this morning after his dose of AZ yesterday.

    I look forward to feeling just as rough on Tuesday.

    My experience was it was just over 24 hours later when it hit.

    The tweet of PM went out yesterday evening, so I reckon he'll start to feel shit sometime in the 2nd half of the rugby.

    Note how the PM was jabbed on a Friday evening. So weekend to recover at Chequers?
    Don’t say that. Wife and I got ours 19 hours ago, and so far nothing but a bit of a sore arm...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Kate Bingham: ‘At the moment there is 100 per cent protection against death, across all the vaccines and across all the variants,’

    Telegraph interview.

    That seems a little bit over egging it. We see from Israel that while most deaths are in the unvaccinated, there are some in the fully vaccinated.



    If the criteria is deaths within 28 days of a +ve result the question in Israel (and increasingly here) is going to be whether those deaths are with Covid or of Covid.

    We really need to start looking at that quite carefully. The evidence seems to be accumulating that the vaccines do not completely prevent you catching Covid but they prevent you from getting ill of it. Some seem to have enough Covid to infect others which is a problem until we are all vaccinated. Once we are this virus will hopefully become a background nuisance for those already seriously ill.
    Kate Bingham makes the point in that interview that she hopes flu and covid jabs will be done as one in medium term future. Longer term - get rid of jab altogether and use a pill.

    It struck me that this might mean fewer deaths from flu in future, as more people are likely to take the new double jab after all we have been through in last year.
    I've been saying for a while that combined Covid and flu jab (absent some MMR-type meme) could mean within 10 years that the net effect of the pandemic could be many more deferred deaths overall.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 3,137
    I agree with Herdson that people are generally too quick to write off Biden's chances due to age. He's worked for too long to give this up easily, incumbency is really important and he will have a lot of people around him willing to cover up and smooth over the worst.

    A one-third chance that he doesn't stand again is still very high by historical standards, but lower than the current odds.

    If he doesn't stand again then I think there are two main factors that will have a bearing. Firstly, how tough the next few years are, and secondly, what is Trump doing?

    The harder the next few years are the stronger will be the challenge from the Left.

    If Trump, or his anointed successor, remains a credible threat, then that reduces the chances of a left challenge being successful.

    I expect that the next few years will be hard, that the 2024 contest will be the first re-run since 1956, and I only hope that Biden will manage to defeat Trump again.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 1,034

    geoffw said:

    The virus has a steep age gradient with respect to severity. That is a datum. Now there are hints that the vaccine does too. If the immune response in younger people can be excessive then shouldn't it be possible to titrate the doses according to the age of the recipient?

    It would be hugely helpful if some kind of research were going on into this right now. If young recipients could be proven to require smaller doses then it would obviously reduce pressure on supply (which, if we make the reasonable assumption that supply will be a huge constraining factor for the foreseeable future,) would significantly accelerate the rollout.
    Very true. See also, women and men. There seems to be anecdotal evidence that the immune response is greater in females (which might simply be down to body size and physiology). But it needs to be looked into.
    It’s opening my eyes to how different sexes and different ages have different physiology. The chances of feeling rough after a vaccine decreases with age, the chances of having a clotting problem after jab might increase the younger and more female you are. Maybe lower platelet count is tied in with physiology. And people can walk around feeling fine and oblivious to some sort of issue causing low platelets until something happens, like jabs them, to bring their attention to it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,381
    Scott_xP said:

    gealbhan said:

    Wee Krankie is safe as houses. She’ll just tough it out blaming bias opposition in hysterical election mode.

    She is not at all safe. The Eck faction is not going to lie down and let her get on with it.
    But do they have any votes in Holyrood? That is going to be the key question this week, assuming that the Greens are as craven and supplicant as usual.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Re Democratic nominee 2024:

    See Biden trip? He's probably not going to be the candidate in three and a half years time.

    5/2 is a 40% chance. That seems too much for a 78 year old, who seems to already be struggling.

    So, who to replace him?

    AOC? No appeal beyond New York, San Francisco and... and... some other place I can't think of.
    Buttigieg? I think he needs to be elected to something bigger than Mayor of South Bend first.

    Harris is a terrible campaigner, but gets first dibs. If the next three and a half years is sunshine and honey for the US, then she is the nominee.

    Otherwise, I think you need to look a bit further. What about Krysten Sisnema? Or Tammy Baldwin? Or Rahm Emmanuel? Or perhaps Amy Klobuchar?

    I think I'd be selling AOC, Biden and Buttigieg.

    5/2 is a 28% chance. He was written off as semi-senile through the 2019-20 campaign and provided few fluffs. And even if he provides substantially more by 2024, the question is not whether you or I think he should run but whether he does.
    Such an important point.

    If Biden runs to be Democratic candidate, he's VERY hard to beat. If Trump stands to be Republican candidate, he's VERY hard to beat.

    There are reasons they may well not stand. Indeed, on balance I think neither will. But those aren't that they'd be flawed candidates - they are principally that they'd choose not to do it. One reason they might not stand is because they recognise their weaknesses, but people in their position aren't known for being shrinking violets.
Sign In or Register to comment.