Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
I assume you didn't see the risk of deafness in people who survive Covid then?
What point are you making? We all know that Covid kills and Covid can have myriad long-term effects when it doesn't kill. Vaccines are (were?) the silver bullet to restore civil liberties. We have the vaccines - they never were never going to be 100% effective - and some people were always going to refuse them/unable to have them - now give us our liberties back - and allow individuals to take responsibility for one's own health.
Its worth doing some fairly basic mathematical modelling on what would happen if we ended restrictions today.
We've 44% of the population jabbed at a level which gives them a ~70% reduction in their chances of being able to spread the virus. Given R0 was probably about 3, R would jump to around (1-(0.44*0.7))*3, or about 2. The doubling time with R=3 was about 7 days, so we'd expect a doubling time with R=2 of about 10days.
Cases currently are at about 5k daily, to get to the December peak of about 60k daily cases is 3.5 doublings, so about 35 days, so we'd expect to be seeing 60k cases a day the end of April.
At 60k cases a day, we got a peak of about 4k daily hospital admissions. Now we've vaccinated ~90% of those likely to be admitted with a vaccine about 85% likely to prevent hospitalisation, so we should actually see 4k * (1-(.9*.85) admissions, or 900 admissions a day.
It's another 3 doublings to that 4k admission point that would represent the NHS, being overrun. At that point we're at 500k infections a day.
This is all presuming no seasonal effects, no attempts by anyone to reduce any risk, and that we cease vaccination entirely tomorrow.
In reality, by mid May we'll have jabbed about another 18 million (15% of the population, so another 12% off R), some of the more timid population will still be in hiding, and the weather would be with us. Add in some WFH (probably baked in anyway) and maybe some very minor social distancing (say masks in supermarkets and on public transport) and its very unlikely that the caseload would ever top out the NHS's capacity.
Given all this, we should massively accelerate opening up - maybe not ditch everything tomorrow, but say shops next Monday, pubs at Easter, and all restrictions gone* mid May.
*Except foreign travel. You should be free to go wherever you like, but 2 weeks hotel isolation on entering the country, no exceptions, until most of the rest of the world is jabbed - importing a vaccine resistant variant is the only big risk, and we should manage things accordingly.
I think ICU admissions will be the main thing to watch.
From the ICNARC report, around 24% were Groups 1-4, 60% Groups 5-9, and 16% the rest. Right now, Groups 1-4 should have that 85% protection and about a third of Groups 5-9. (About two thirds of the latter have been jabbed, but the second third haven't had the time since dose).
Unlocking now would leave 63% of the ICU group vulnerable. Unlocking in three weeks would leave 45% of them vulnerable Unlocking in five weeks would leave 29% of them vulnerable
(Call it 60%, 45%, 30%)
We'll also need to have the R-decrease by immunity ramp up to 44% of the population over time (as 3 weeks ago, it was 30%, ramping up quite quickly, so the R decrease would be lower as of now. However, partly balancing that we have the immunity from acquired infection, which is probably at least 25% of the population with similar R decrease. Depending on how high the transmissibility of B1.1.1.7 is, R would be between 2.1 and 2.5.
It would be decreasing steadily over the next three weeks, though.
So opening up now would have a doubling rate of around 4 days. (The period for R=2 seems to be c. 5 days) Peak weekly admissions to ICU were about 2500 per day.
At 5500 cases per day, we're 3.5 doublings away from the 60,000 cases per day peak; that's 14 days, although in that time, R would drop by about a further 0.2. That might slow it to 16 days. That's not quite enough time to get the currently-jabbed up to strong protection; call it around the 55% reduction level. One further doubling (4 days; call it 5 by now) would get to the point of exceeding the peak on ICU admissions.
Or, to put it another way, if we dropped all restrictions today and everyone went back immediately to normal life (I'd expect it to be a bit tentative from some), we could expect the ICUs to have a greater influx of critically ill patients than at the peak within 3 weeks.
Where do you get a 4 day doubling time from with R at ~2? 4 days is about what it does completely unfettered, with no vaccination, distancing or prior infection. My point was that allowing for vaccination, the doubling time now is probably more like 10 days if we completely take the brakes off.
I think we're currently seeing about 25 icu admissions a day (I've had to do a bit of educated guesswork to get that number, it doesn't seem to be readily available when googled), which puts us at 6-7 doublings to peak capacity again. At a 10 day doubling, that tallies will the rest of my analysis, and suggests completely releasing everything and stopping vaccination would give us a peak that swamps the NHS in mid to late May.
Again, it's leads to the same basic conclusions - we can relax a lot of measures now without any risk of swamping the NHS and probably release everything except foreign travel (which is actually a different type of issue entirely, it doesn't drive R directly) by the middle of May unless the vaccination program stutters very badly in the next month or so. Boris's road map is far too unambitious.
if they ban the exports they sit there in storage - still doesn't get them to an EU country - unless they steal them. The going forward AZ can simply say the EU have made it impossible to perform the contract and repudiate it. Would all end up in a Belgian court and be decided at some future date when the EU is swimming in vaccines
Hartlepool will shortly speak and I'll be listening very carefully.
Yes your rather weak attempt at expectations management there has fooled no-one. Everyone knows it will be a Labour hold on a low turnout.
Very few people here expect a Labour hold...
I have said so from the start as have many others. The majority of thoise forecasting a Labour loss have been on the left - some genuine no doubt, but others clearly playing politics. The seat has long been Labour and the tories only came moderately close last time because of the Brexit party. I am from the Sunderland area - and Hartlepool is more akin to those seats or Easington. It would be something of a political earthquake were it to go blue. Current polling simply does not support it.
Let's just blockade Rotterdam and withdraw troops and planes from NATO countries in the EU. I'm a Remainer but it is bloody nose time for our European friends.
Let's just blockade Rotterdam and withdraw troops and planes from NATO countries in the EU. I'm a Remainer but it is bloody nose time for our European friends.
According to some on here earlier there will be no ban on exports at all. Dofficult to be sure but the latest news suggests it may happen.
Hartlepool will shortly speak and I'll be listening very carefully.
Yes your rather weak attempt at expectations management there has fooled no-one. Everyone knows it will be a Labour hold on a low turnout.
Very few people here expect a Labour hold...
I have said so from the start as have many others. The majority of thoise forecasting a Labour loss have been on the left - some genuine no doubt, but others clearly playing politics. The seat has long been Labour and the tories only came moderately close last time because of the Brexit party. I am from the Sunderland area - and Hartlepool is more akin to those seats or Easington. It would be something of a political earthquake were it to go blue. Current polling simply does not support it.
Well I have no expectation of Labour holding Hartlepool.
Hartlepool will shortly speak and I'll be listening very carefully.
Yes your rather weak attempt at expectations management there has fooled no-one. Everyone knows it will be a Labour hold on a low turnout.
Very few people here expect a Labour hold...
I have said so from the start as have many others. The majority of thoise forecasting a Labour loss have been on the left - some genuine no doubt, but others clearly playing politics. The seat has long been Labour and the tories only came moderately close last time because of the Brexit party. I am from the Sunderland area - and Hartlepool is more akin to those seats or Easington. It would be something of a political earthquake were it to go blue. Current polling simply does not support it.
Well I have no expectation of Labour holding Hartlepool.
FWIW I would love to be proven wrong on this one. If it did fall then it would open many more red wall seats for the blues.
Journalists who responded to every piece of state authoritarianism with 'why don't you go further?' suddenly wonder why government is acting in a high handed manner.
People scream on here: "but lockdowns work. Go Government". As if that is the most important aspect to all this legislation.
And before they know it they are faced with some measure or other which breeches their own red lines and then they say "well they can't do that". But they already have. And then they look around frantically for Steve Baker of all people to come and rescue them/us all.
Its also striking how even people with strong red lines defend the government right up to point at which the line is breached, and defend it ferociously until that point.
Just the other day I got accused of 'moaning like a whore' for criticising the pace at which lockdown is being rolled back.
You can only bore folk for so long before they get fed up.?
Something meta about that post –– all you seem to post about these days is Sir Keir "Royale" Starmer!!
Wrong - I haven't hardly posted about him at all. You've muddled me with someone else.
Sorry, that was meant for iSam!
The part of politics that I’m most interested in at the moment is the leader ratings and what I see as the madness of using the net figure to compare politician. I did think Sir Keir would prove too bland for the public, but I’m surprised that he is considered incompetent, indecisive & untrustworthy as well
Let's just blockade Rotterdam and withdraw troops and planes from NATO countries in the EU. I'm a Remainer but it is bloody nose time for our European friends.
Its extraordinary.
Two years ago, you couldn't make comments like this unless by law, you were a white man over 40, wearing a blazer, holding a pint and having a fag on.
Hartlepool will shortly speak and I'll be listening very carefully.
Yes your rather weak attempt at expectations management there has fooled no-one. Everyone knows it will be a Labour hold on a low turnout.
Very few people here expect a Labour hold...
I have said so from the start as have many others. The majority of thoise forecasting a Labour loss have been on the left - some genuine no doubt, but others clearly playing politics. The seat has long been Labour and the tories only came moderately close last time because of the Brexit party. I am from the Sunderland area - and Hartlepool is more akin to those seats or Easington. It would be something of a political earthquake were it to go blue. Current polling simply does not support it.
Hartlepool isn't Sunderland. The Makems always elect a Labour MP and a Labour council. Hartlepool had a Tory MP in the 60s and its council now only has 8 Labour members on it.
The EU (or I think specifically member states) have the the power to ban exports if they wish. They will act in what they perceive as in their interest. The contracts that AZ has with the UK government and the EU Commission are irrelevant to this.
The more compelling argument is that a ban isn't in the EU's interest. The upside in terms of doses gained is miniscule, against the EU's population and the very large numbers of doses coming on stream shortly. It causes a huge amount of grief and is a distraction from the job of getting Europeans vaccinated.
Journalists who responded to every piece of state authoritarianism with 'why don't you go further?' suddenly wonder why government is acting in a high handed manner.
People scream on here: "but lockdowns work. Go Government". As if that is the most important aspect to all this legislation.
And before they know it they are faced with some measure or other which breeches their own red lines and then they say "well they can't do that". But they already have. And then they look around frantically for Steve Baker of all people to come and rescue them/us all.
Its also striking how even people with strong red lines defend the government right up to point at which the line is breached, and defend it ferociously until that point.
Just the other day I got accused of 'moaning like a whore' for criticising the pace at which lockdown is being rolled back.
Suddenly its, Steve, save us!
No, you were criticised for moaning like a whore for complaining about the pace of the lockdown removal then not taking the quickest route for that, a vaccine, because you don't want the man to give you the jab, you want it at your own timetable, but based on your age, you were eligible for it weeks ago.
Hartlepool will shortly speak and I'll be listening very carefully.
Yes your rather weak attempt at expectations management there has fooled no-one. Everyone knows it will be a Labour hold on a low turnout.
Very few people here expect a Labour hold...
I have said so from the start as have many others. The majority of thoise forecasting a Labour loss have been on the left - some genuine no doubt, but others clearly playing politics. The seat has long been Labour and the tories only came moderately close last time because of the Brexit party. I am from the Sunderland area - and Hartlepool is more akin to those seats or Easington. It would be something of a political earthquake were it to go blue. Current polling simply does not support it.
Well I have no expectation of Labour holding Hartlepool.
FWIW I would love to be proven wrong on this one. If it did fall then it would open many more red wall seats for the blues.
What we don't know is how much Labour were affected by Jeremy Corbyn in the 2019 GE. If Labour's vote share goes up in the Hartlepool by election that suggests Corbyn was indeed a significant but temporary drag. If it doesn't it suggests those former Labour voters have permanently changed their allegiance.
If the latter, you're right, even seats like mine (Newcastle upon Tyne North) are potentially in play in the near future.
Hartlepool will shortly speak and I'll be listening very carefully.
Yes your rather weak attempt at expectations management there has fooled no-one. Everyone knows it will be a Labour hold on a low turnout.
Very few people here expect a Labour hold...
I have said so from the start as have many others. The majority of thoise forecasting a Labour loss have been on the left - some genuine no doubt, but others clearly playing politics. The seat has long been Labour and the tories only came moderately close last time because of the Brexit party. I am from the Sunderland area - and Hartlepool is more akin to those seats or Easington. It would be something of a political earthquake were it to go blue. Current polling simply does not support it.
Well I have no expectation of Labour holding Hartlepool.
It's an almost unique constituency in terms of vote split at the 2019 GE. The only one that comes close is Barnsley East, but that had a much less high profile Brexit candidate and the Lab 2015 vote was much stronger there.
If Tice had gone for Barnsley East he'd probably have won, I also think labour would hold Barnsley East in a BE but they won't hold Hartlepool.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
I assume you didn't see the risk of deafness in people who survive Covid then?
What point are you making? We all know that Covid kills and Covid can have myriad long-term effects when it doesn't kill. Vaccines are (were?) the silver bullet to restore civil liberties. We have the vaccines - they never were never going to be 100% effective - and some people were always going to refuse them/unable to have them - now give us our liberties back - and allow individuals to take responsibility for one's own health.
Its worth doing some fairly basic mathematical modelling on what would happen if we ended restrictions today.
We've 44% of the population jabbed at a level which gives them a ~70% reduction in their chances of being able to spread the virus. Given R0 was probably about 3, R would jump to around (1-(0.44*0.7))*3, or about 2. The doubling time with R=3 was about 7 days, so we'd expect a doubling time with R=2 of about 10days.
Cases currently are at about 5k daily, to get to the December peak of about 60k daily cases is 3.5 doublings, so about 35 days, so we'd expect to be seeing 60k cases a day the end of April.
At 60k cases a day, we got a peak of about 4k daily hospital admissions. Now we've vaccinated ~90% of those likely to be admitted with a vaccine about 85% likely to prevent hospitalisation, so we should actually see 4k * (1-(.9*.85) admissions, or 900 admissions a day.
It's another 3 doublings to that 4k admission point that would represent the NHS, being overrun. At that point we're at 500k infections a day.
This is all presuming no seasonal effects, no attempts by anyone to reduce any risk, and that we cease vaccination entirely tomorrow.
In reality, by mid May we'll have jabbed about another 18 million (15% of the population, so another 12% off R), some of the more timid population will still be in hiding, and the weather would be with us. Add in some WFH (probably baked in anyway) and maybe some very minor social distancing (say masks in supermarkets and on public transport) and its very unlikely that the caseload would ever top out the NHS's capacity.
Given all this, we should massively accelerate opening up - maybe not ditch everything tomorrow, but say shops next Monday, pubs at Easter, and all restrictions gone* mid May.
*Except foreign travel. You should be free to go wherever you like, but 2 weeks hotel isolation on entering the country, no exceptions, until most of the rest of the world is jabbed - importing a vaccine resistant variant is the only big risk, and we should manage things accordingly.
I think ICU admissions will be the main thing to watch.
From the ICNARC report, around 24% were Groups 1-4, 60% Groups 5-9, and 16% the rest. Right now, Groups 1-4 should have that 85% protection and about a third of Groups 5-9. (About two thirds of the latter have been jabbed, but the second third haven't had the time since dose).
Unlocking now would leave 63% of the ICU group vulnerable. Unlocking in three weeks would leave 45% of them vulnerable Unlocking in five weeks would leave 29% of them vulnerable
(Call it 60%, 45%, 30%)
We'll also need to have the R-decrease by immunity ramp up to 44% of the population over time (as 3 weeks ago, it was 30%, ramping up quite quickly, so the R decrease would be lower as of now. However, partly balancing that we have the immunity from acquired infection, which is probably at least 25% of the population with similar R decrease. Depending on how high the transmissibility of B1.1.1.7 is, R would be between 2.1 and 2.5.
It would be decreasing steadily over the next three weeks, though.
So opening up now would have a doubling rate of around 4 days. (The period for R=2 seems to be c. 5 days) Peak weekly admissions to ICU were about 2500 per day.
At 5500 cases per day, we're 3.5 doublings away from the 60,000 cases per day peak; that's 14 days, although in that time, R would drop by about a further 0.2. That might slow it to 16 days. That's not quite enough time to get the currently-jabbed up to strong protection; call it around the 55% reduction level. One further doubling (4 days; call it 5 by now) would get to the point of exceeding the peak on ICU admissions.
Or, to put it another way, if we dropped all restrictions today and everyone went back immediately to normal life (I'd expect it to be a bit tentative from some), we could expect the ICUs to have a greater influx of critically ill patients than at the peak within 3 weeks.
Where do you get a 4 day doubling time from with R at ~2? 4 days is about what it does completely unfettered, with no vaccination, distancing or prior infection. My point was that allowing for vaccination, the doubling time now is probably more like 10 days if we completely take the brakes off.
I think we're currently seeing about 25 icu admissions a day (I've had to do a bit of educated guesswork to get that number, it doesn't seem to be readily available when googled), which puts us at 6-7 doublings to peak capacity again. At a 10 day doubling, that tallies will the rest of my analysis, and suggests completely releasing everything and stopping vaccination would give us a peak that swamps the NHS in mid to late May.
Again, it's leads to the same basic conclusions - we can relax a lot of measures now without any risk of swamping the NHS and probably release everything except foreign travel (which is actually a different type of issue entirely, it doesn't drive R directly) by the middle of May unless the vaccination program stutters very badly in the next month or so. Boris's road map is far too unambitious.
If the reproduction period is 5 days, an R of 2 equals doubling in 5 days. R0 was estimated at about 3.3 with the original variant, so doubling in about 3 days (which, from the 7-day average of deaths at the start of the first wave, looks about right for a reproductive period of 5 days and an R0 of 3.3.. The new variant is estimated at 50% more transmissible. For a doubling period of 10 days, we'd need R to be just over 1.4.
We have an uprating of 50% to R from B.1.1.1.7 and a downrating from increased immunity. We have to drop a long way to get an R of 1.4.
You can only bore folk for so long before they get fed up.?
Something meta about that post –– all you seem to post about these days is Sir Keir "Royale" Starmer!!
Wrong - I haven't hardly posted about him at all. You've muddled me with someone else.
Sorry, that was meant for iSam!
The part of politics that I’m most interested in at the moment is the leader ratings and what I see as the madness of using the net figure to compare politician. I did think Sir Keir would prove too bland for the public, but I’m surprised that he is considered incompetent, indecisive & untrustworthy as well
It's fair enough, I'm just pulling your leg. Funnily enough though, I see Sir Keir's key role as detoxifying the party, rather than winning – a sort of modern-day Kinnock if you like.
Hartlepool will shortly speak and I'll be listening very carefully.
Yes your rather weak attempt at expectations management there has fooled no-one. Everyone knows it will be a Labour hold on a low turnout.
Very few people here expect a Labour hold...
I have said so from the start as have many others. The majority of thoise forecasting a Labour loss have been on the left - some genuine no doubt, but others clearly playing politics. The seat has long been Labour and the tories only came moderately close last time because of the Brexit party. I am from the Sunderland area - and Hartlepool is more akin to those seats or Easington. It would be something of a political earthquake were it to go blue. Current polling simply does not support it.
Hartlepool isn't Sunderland. The Makems always elect a Labour MP and a Labour council. Hartlepool had a Tory MP in the 60s and its council now only has 8 Labour members on it.
Of course Sunderland is also a university "city" and much more metropolitan than Hartlepool.
Hartlepool will shortly speak and I'll be listening very carefully.
Yes your rather weak attempt at expectations management there has fooled no-one. Everyone knows it will be a Labour hold on a low turnout.
Very few people here expect a Labour hold...
I have said so from the start as have many others. The majority of thoise forecasting a Labour loss have been on the left - some genuine no doubt, but others clearly playing politics. The seat has long been Labour and the tories only came moderately close last time because of the Brexit party. I am from the Sunderland area - and Hartlepool is more akin to those seats or Easington. It would be something of a political earthquake were it to go blue. Current polling simply does not support it.
Hartlepool isn't Sunderland. The Makems always elect a Labour MP and a Labour council. Hartlepool had a Tory MP in the 60s and its council now only has 8 Labour members on it.
Of course Sunderland is also a university "city" and much more metropolitan than Hartlepool.
Sunderland also swung away from Labour in 2019 in a way which other university cities didn't though. Sunderland is not Hartlepool, but nor is it Newcastle.
The much-vaunted vaccine export ban isn't happening and never was happening.
If you threaten something you dont mean it can happen unintentionally, and the threat can be as bad as the action.
Boris was rightly condemned by many over the internal market bill over just such threat/intention rather than the outcome which actually happened. To this day people reference the potential outcome he risked.
So no one gets brownie points for graciousness by threatening action then not taking that action.
Hartlepool will shortly speak and I'll be listening very carefully.
Yes your rather weak attempt at expectations management there has fooled no-one. Everyone knows it will be a Labour hold on a low turnout.
Very few people here expect a Labour hold...
I have said so from the start as have many others. The majority of thoise forecasting a Labour loss have been on the left - some genuine no doubt, but others clearly playing politics. The seat has long been Labour and the tories only came moderately close last time because of the Brexit party. I am from the Sunderland area - and Hartlepool is more akin to those seats or Easington. It would be something of a political earthquake were it to go blue. Current polling simply does not support it.
Hartlepool isn't Sunderland. The Makems always elect a Labour MP and a Labour council. Hartlepool had a Tory MP in the 60s and its council now only has 8 Labour members on it.
Of course Sunderland is also a university "city" and much more metropolitan than Hartlepool.
Sunderland also swung away from Labour in 2019 in a way which other university cities didn't though. Sunderland is not Hartlepool, but nor is it Newcastle.
Of course you're right. But I didn't say it was like Newcastle.
However all 3 Newcastle seats saw reduced Labour vote shares.
The much-vaunted vaccine export ban isn't happening and never was happening.
If you threaten something you dont mean it can happen unintentionally, and the threat can be as bad as the action.
Boris was rightly condemned by many over the internal market bill over just such threat/intention rather than the outcome which actually happened. To this day people reference the potential outcome he risked.
So no one gets brownie points for graciousness by threatening action then not taking that action.
It is why it makes me inclined to think the EU will do it, because to back down now makes them look weak, especially after one U-Turn already after VDL going full metal Cartman on AZN contract, to then quietly be told it doesn't say what you think it does, so might be better to not to threaten to sue them, which spun into the NI border fiasco.
Sounds like again, the EC didn't understand what they signed up to with AZN.
Perhaps, but I don't see why we went to the trouble of setting up AZN in the UK if it wasn't going to meet our needs. It was right not to give the EU our supply from the UK (despite having some of the EU plant's supply initially), but us getting all the Belgian supply, until our campaign is finished, whilst no doubt contractually valid, is a a far harder sell diplomatically, there's no point in denying that.
Hartlepool will shortly speak and I'll be listening very carefully.
Yes your rather weak attempt at expectations management there has fooled no-one. Everyone knows it will be a Labour hold on a low turnout.
Very few people here expect a Labour hold...
I have said so from the start as have many others. The majority of thoise forecasting a Labour loss have been on the left - some genuine no doubt, but others clearly playing politics. The seat has long been Labour and the tories only came moderately close last time because of the Brexit party. I am from the Sunderland area - and Hartlepool is more akin to those seats or Easington. It would be something of a political earthquake were it to go blue. Current polling simply does not support it.
Hartlepool isn't Sunderland. The Makems always elect a Labour MP and a Labour council. Hartlepool had a Tory MP in the 60s and its council now only has 8 Labour members on it.
Of course Sunderland is also a university "city" and much more metropolitan than Hartlepool.
The much-vaunted vaccine export ban isn't happening and never was happening.
If you threaten something you dont mean it can happen unintentionally, and the threat can be as bad as the action.
Boris was rightly condemned by many over the internal market bill over just such threat/intention rather than the outcome which actually happened. To this day people reference the potential outcome he risked.
So no one gets brownie points for graciousness by threatening action then not taking that action.
It is why it makes me inclined to think the EU will do it, because to back down now makes them look weak, especially after one U-Turn already after VDL going full metal Cartman on AZN contract, to then quietly be told it doesn't say what you think it does, so might be better to not to threaten to sue them, which spun into the NI border fiasco.
Reading The Times it is clear Mrs Merkel has been reading my posts and knows that a vaccine export ban leads to a very short short term win but utter medium to long term damage to them and pharma will remember, and she also knows AZN and others make more than Covid-19 vaccines.
That this is leading to diversion of supplies from that specific plant makes total sense. It's not about having enough doses as they aren't using all they have, so it's about being seen to get more than presently scheduled.
Strangely, my Californian start up doesn't have a Chief Impact Officer.
I'm staggered we've been able up survive without it.
I bet he will really hate that he is only getting these offers because he is a prince. Unearned privilege after all
We should all rejoice that he can now earn some pin money that doesn't involve coming up with shocking revelations about the British Royal family to share on a chat show sofa every 3 years.
The much-vaunted vaccine export ban isn't happening and never was happening.
If you threaten something you dont mean it can happen unintentionally, and the threat can be as bad as the action.
Boris was rightly condemned by many over the internal market bill over just such threat/intention rather than the outcome which actually happened. To this day people reference the potential outcome he risked.
So no one gets brownie points for graciousness by threatening action then not taking that action.
It is why it makes me inclined to think the EU will do it, because to back down now makes them look weak, especially after one U-Turn already after VDL going full metal Cartman on AZN contract, to then quietly be told it doesn't say what you think it does, so might be better to not to threaten to sue them, which spun into the NI border fiasco.
Look also at the Tony Connelly tweet williamglenn has shared. If they don't distract with an export ban then the attention will be concentrated on the mistakes they made last year.
I said the other day that I wasn't sure if VI polling is useful during a pandemic, but I'm writing a thread looking at a few numbers in similar periods for LOTOs and in a lot of them Starmer's pattern is very reflective of David Cameron between 2006 and the summer of 2007.
I've even managed to segue in a reference to this piece, one that is seldom shared on PB.
So Cameron's LOTO ratings fell during the height of the New Labour boom when all was milk and honey, whereas Starmer's ratings have fallen during a national crisis in which every household has suffered and the government has been assailed from all sides...
And that comparison is supposed to be good news for Starmer? OK...
I did think that! Maybe Sir Keir just needs a good financial crisis before people start to warm to him! Death & House Arrest are nothing
Actually that's not true, Dave's Tories led by 28% with some pollsters just before RBS went mammary glands up to behind Labour within a few months.
That no time for a novice line did resonate for a bit.
But DC's personal ratings didn't suffer, they improved from Sep 2007 onwards
Meanwhile, for Net lovers, Boris approval is -3, and Sir Keir -13 (45-32 GP)
This is correct, but even I can see there will need to be some give and take here.
We should start with saying we don't want to give them anything, but after some negotiation, if we both end up with 50% of the output of the Belgian plant (and of course we have 100% of the UK plant), I think we won't have done too badly. If the Government wants to be ballsier than that, that's fine.
Hartlepool will shortly speak and I'll be listening very carefully.
Yes your rather weak attempt at expectations management there has fooled no-one. Everyone knows it will be a Labour hold on a low turnout.
Very few people here expect a Labour hold...
I have said so from the start as have many others. The majority of thoise forecasting a Labour loss have been on the left - some genuine no doubt, but others clearly playing politics. The seat has long been Labour and the tories only came moderately close last time because of the Brexit party. I am from the Sunderland area - and Hartlepool is more akin to those seats or Easington. It would be something of a political earthquake were it to go blue. Current polling simply does not support it.
Hartlepool isn't Sunderland. The Makems always elect a Labour MP and a Labour council. Hartlepool had a Tory MP in the 60s and its council now only has 8 Labour members on it.
Of course Sunderland is also a university "city" and much more metropolitan than Hartlepool.
Sunderland also swung away from Labour in 2019 in a way which other university cities didn't though. Sunderland is not Hartlepool, but nor is it Newcastle.
Of course you're right. But I didn't say it was like Newcastle.
However all 3 Newcastle seats saw reduced Labour vote shares.
Fair point. Was the swing bigger in Sunderland? Or was Sunderland just less red to start with? Or am I completely misremembering?
Hartlepool will shortly speak and I'll be listening very carefully.
Yes your rather weak attempt at expectations management there has fooled no-one. Everyone knows it will be a Labour hold on a low turnout.
Very few people here expect a Labour hold...
I have said so from the start as have many others. The majority of thoise forecasting a Labour loss have been on the left - some genuine no doubt, but others clearly playing politics. The seat has long been Labour and the tories only came moderately close last time because of the Brexit party. I am from the Sunderland area - and Hartlepool is more akin to those seats or Easington. It would be something of a political earthquake were it to go blue. Current polling simply does not support it.
Hartlepool isn't Sunderland. The Makems always elect a Labour MP and a Labour council. Hartlepool had a Tory MP in the 60s and its council now only has 8 Labour members on it.
Sunderland south had a Tory MP until 1963 - and I believe the council went blue for a while. You are misinformed.
Hartlepool will shortly speak and I'll be listening very carefully.
Yes your rather weak attempt at expectations management there has fooled no-one. Everyone knows it will be a Labour hold on a low turnout.
"Everyone knows" Labour will hold and yet the betting is a straight 50/50. How strange.
kindbalu, what would you consider a good price for a Labour hold on this? I got on Labour at 2.1, I think, which I thought was good value. I think 2 would still be good value. I'd say Lab at anywhere down to 1.8 would be value; below that not. Where do you draw the line?
This is correct, but even I can see there will need to be some give and take here.
We should start with saying we don't want to give them anything, but after some negotiation, if we both end up with 50% of the output of the Belgian plant (and of course we have 100% of the UK plant), I think we won't have done too badly. If the Government wants to be ballsier than that, that's fine.
Bloomberg has reported that 1) The EU wants a "population share" of the AZN Dutch plant output (which the UK set up as part of the UK supply chain, with UK £££ and UK expertise) and 2) Will have the right to stop vaccine delivery to ANY country outside the EU from ANY manufacturer (for example, Pfizer) if that country has high vaccination rates and doesn't export to the EU. Guess who fits that profile?
Labour heading for crossover but then stymied by the great vaccine war?
I think is a bit of an outlier, much like the YouGov 13% lead one was.
I do remember that Sir Bob Worcester saying back about 15 years ago said the attribute the voters really don't like the Tories displaying is smugness, I wonder if it might be smugness about the vaccine is behind it?
Strangely, my Californian start up doesn't have a Chief Impact Officer.
I'm staggered we've been able up survive without it.
I bet he will really hate that he is only getting these offers because he is a prince. Unearned privilege after all
We should all rejoice that he can now earn some pin money that doesn't involve coming up with shocking revelations about the British Royal family to share on a chat show sofa every 3 years.
Oh indeed. Better all round if he can make a career of something.
The much-vaunted vaccine export ban isn't happening and never was happening.
If you threaten something you dont mean it can happen unintentionally, and the threat can be as bad as the action.
Boris was rightly condemned by many over the internal market bill over just such threat/intention rather than the outcome which actually happened. To this day people reference the potential outcome he risked.
So no one gets brownie points for graciousness by threatening action then not taking that action.
Oh I entirely agree, I am simply making the point that the export ban ain't happening.
So, pop quiz: you are a large business, wondering whether to have a critical part of your supply chain in a) the EU or b) the UK. Which do you choose?
In all seriousness, how much impact do you expect this to have?
It moves any decision that is currently a coin toss significantly in the UK's favour. How many big corporate decisions are a coin toss? Probably not many. But the UK's tone has been exactly what you'd want to see - and the EUs exactly what you wouldn't.
This is correct, but even I can see there will need to be some give and take here.
We should start with saying we don't want to give them anything, but after some negotiation, if we both end up with 50% of the output of the Belgian plant (and of course we have 100% of the UK plant), I think we won't have done too badly. If the Government wants to be ballsier than that, that's fine.
Bloomberg has reported that 1) The EU wants a "population share" of the AZN Dutch plant output (which the UK set up as part of the UK supply chain, with UK £££ and UK expertise) and 2) Will have the right to stop vaccine delivery to ANY country outside the EU from ANY manufacturer (for example, Pfizer) if that country has high vaccination rates and doesn't export to the EU. Guess who fits that profile?
I think I'm getting my plants confused, sorry - there is now a Dutch and a Belgian? Or I'm making the Belgian thing up? Not sure why we took the risk of putting another one in Holland rather than the UK.
Hartlepool will shortly speak and I'll be listening very carefully.
Yes your rather weak attempt at expectations management there has fooled no-one. Everyone knows it will be a Labour hold on a low turnout.
Very few people here expect a Labour hold...
I have said so from the start as have many others. The majority of thoise forecasting a Labour loss have been on the left - some genuine no doubt, but others clearly playing politics. The seat has long been Labour and the tories only came moderately close last time because of the Brexit party. I am from the Sunderland area - and Hartlepool is more akin to those seats or Easington. It would be something of a political earthquake were it to go blue. Current polling simply does not support it.
Hartlepool isn't Sunderland. The Makems always elect a Labour MP and a Labour council. Hartlepool had a Tory MP in the 60s and its council now only has 8 Labour members on it.
Sunderland south had a Tory MP until 1963 - and I believe the council went blue for a while. You are misinformed.
Sunderland City/Metropolitan Borough Council has been under Labour control since it was formed in 1973...
This is correct, but even I can see there will need to be some give and take here.
We should start with saying we don't want to give them anything, but after some negotiation, if we both end up with 50% of the output of the Belgian plant (and of course we have 100% of the UK plant), I think we won't have done too badly. If the Government wants to be ballsier than that, that's fine.
Offer maybe UK gets 75% in April, 50% in May, 25% in June.
The much-vaunted vaccine export ban isn't happening and never was happening.
If you threaten something you dont mean it can happen unintentionally, and the threat can be as bad as the action.
Boris was rightly condemned by many over the internal market bill over just such threat/intention rather than the outcome which actually happened. To this day people reference the potential outcome he risked.
So no one gets brownie points for graciousness by threatening action then not taking that action.
Oh I entirely agree, I am simply making the point that the export ban ain't happening.
It looks like it already is.
It seems from what's been posted today that the UK is entitled contractually to 100% of the Halix vaccine doses until our order is fulfilled then the EU are due theirs - but the UK and EU are negotiating for a proportion of the doses instead with the threat of the blockade if an agreement isn't reached.
If an agreement is reached upon a threat of a blockade so the UK only gets say 25% of the doses instead of 100% then a "ban" may not have happened, but the contracts have been messed with.
Hartlepool will shortly speak and I'll be listening very carefully.
Yes your rather weak attempt at expectations management there has fooled no-one. Everyone knows it will be a Labour hold on a low turnout.
Very few people here expect a Labour hold...
I have said so from the start as have many others. The majority of thoise forecasting a Labour loss have been on the left - some genuine no doubt, but others clearly playing politics. The seat has long been Labour and the tories only came moderately close last time because of the Brexit party. I am from the Sunderland area - and Hartlepool is more akin to those seats or Easington. It would be something of a political earthquake were it to go blue. Current polling simply does not support it.
Hartlepool isn't Sunderland. The Makems always elect a Labour MP and a Labour council. Hartlepool had a Tory MP in the 60s and its council now only has 8 Labour members on it.
Sunderland south had a Tory MP until 1963 - and I believe the council went blue for a while. You are misinformed.
This seat is going to be a Tory win.
The option is simple, would you like more of not very much or to get some of the jobs heading to Middlesbrough, Darlington and Redcar.
Labour heading for crossover but then stymied by the great vaccine war?
I think is a bit of an outlier, much like the YouGov 13% lead one was.
I do remember that Sir Bob Worcester saying back about 15 years ago said the attribute the voters really don't like the Tories displaying is smugness, I wonder if it might be smugness about the vaccine is behind it?
Given we're still (notionally, at least) in lockdown, the government doesn't have a lot to be smug about.
Labour heading for crossover but then stymied by the great vaccine war?
I think is a bit of an outlier, much like the YouGov 13% lead one was.
I do remember that Sir Bob Worcester saying back about 15 years ago said the attribute the voters really don't like the Tories displaying is smugness, I wonder if it might be smugness about the vaccine is behind it?
Given we're still (notionally, at least) in lockdown, the government doesn't have a lot to be smug about.
Like incest, it is a relative thing, we're doing better than most of European neighbours, whilst the likes of Germany are prepping for a very severe lockdown, we're prepping for the end of lockdown.
The last year of polling has been a reflection of the pandemic, when we were doing much worse than the Europeans on excess deaths Boris Johnson and the Tories were behind in the polls.
Hartlepool will shortly speak and I'll be listening very carefully.
Yes your rather weak attempt at expectations management there has fooled no-one. Everyone knows it will be a Labour hold on a low turnout.
Very few people here expect a Labour hold...
I have said so from the start as have many others. The majority of thoise forecasting a Labour loss have been on the left - some genuine no doubt, but others clearly playing politics. The seat has long been Labour and the tories only came moderately close last time because of the Brexit party. I am from the Sunderland area - and Hartlepool is more akin to those seats or Easington. It would be something of a political earthquake were it to go blue. Current polling simply does not support it.
Hartlepool isn't Sunderland. The Makems always elect a Labour MP and a Labour council. Hartlepool had a Tory MP in the 60s and its council now only has 8 Labour members on it.
Sunderland south had a Tory MP until 1963 - and I believe the council went blue for a while. You are misinformed.
This seat is going to be a Tory win.
The option is simple, would you like more of not very much or to get some of the jobs heading to Middlesbrough, Darlington and Redcar.
Only so many government departments to move though.
This is correct, but even I can see there will need to be some give and take here.
We should start with saying we don't want to give them anything, but after some negotiation, if we both end up with 50% of the output of the Belgian plant (and of course we have 100% of the UK plant), I think we won't have done too badly. If the Government wants to be ballsier than that, that's fine.
Bloomberg has reported that 1) The EU wants a "population share" of the AZN Dutch plant output (which the UK set up as part of the UK supply chain, with UK £££ and UK expertise) and 2) Will have the right to stop vaccine delivery to ANY country outside the EU from ANY manufacturer (for example, Pfizer) if that country has high vaccination rates and doesn't export to the EU. Guess who fits that profile?
I think I'm getting my plants confused, sorry - there is now a Dutch and a Belgian? Or I'm making the Belgian thing up? Not sure why we took the risk of putting another one in Holland rather than the UK.
The Belgian plant is Pfizer and is important to the UK for second doses. If they blocked those exports that would be a very serious issue indeed, with several million elderly Brits reliant on the second dose over the next couple of months.
This is correct, but even I can see there will need to be some give and take here.
We should start with saying we don't want to give them anything, but after some negotiation, if we both end up with 50% of the output of the Belgian plant (and of course we have 100% of the UK plant), I think we won't have done too badly. If the Government wants to be ballsier than that, that's fine.
Bloomberg has reported that 1) The EU wants a "population share" of the AZN Dutch plant output (which the UK set up as part of the UK supply chain, with UK £££ and UK expertise) and 2) Will have the right to stop vaccine delivery to ANY country outside the EU from ANY manufacturer (for example, Pfizer) if that country has high vaccination rates and doesn't export to the EU. Guess who fits that profile?
I think I'm getting my plants confused, sorry - there is now a Dutch and a Belgian? Or I'm making the Belgian thing up? Not sure why we took the risk of putting another one in Holland rather than the UK.
The Belgian plant produces for the EU contract with AZNAB. The Helix plant was set up for the UK contract with AZNPLC. It will then supply doses to the EU after it has fulfilled its UK contractual obligations.
Just been to my first lockdown parents' evening Online. Something that is a major upgrade. 5 mins and the camera cuts you off. No sitting around in corridors waiting for people to take 25 minutes. No amateur orienteering around looking for the right classroom on a poorly photocopied floor plan. No worries about being overheard. No small talk with other parents you don't recognise. And no traipsing off to school. Over and done in 20 minutes.
This is correct, but even I can see there will need to be some give and take here.
We should start with saying we don't want to give them anything, but after some negotiation, if we both end up with 50% of the output of the Belgian plant (and of course we have 100% of the UK plant), I think we won't have done too badly. If the Government wants to be ballsier than that, that's fine.
Bloomberg has reported that 1) The EU wants a "population share" of the AZN Dutch plant output (which the UK set up as part of the UK supply chain, with UK £££ and UK expertise) and 2) Will have the right to stop vaccine delivery to ANY country outside the EU from ANY manufacturer (for example, Pfizer) if that country has high vaccination rates and doesn't export to the EU. Guess who fits that profile?
I think I'm getting my plants confused, sorry - there is now a Dutch and a Belgian? Or I'm making the Belgian thing up? Not sure why we took the risk of putting another one in Holland rather than the UK.
The Belgian plant produces for the EU contract with AZNAB. The Helix plant was set up for the UK contract with AZNPLC. It will then supply doses to the EU after it has fulfilled its UK contractual obligations.
They are blocking exports from Halix so that AZ is forced to break its contract with the UK and export to the EU from the UK, thus grievously slowing our vaccine drive. Thus killing Britons and killing our economy.
It is time to tell them to do one. With a loaded gun
They are blocking exports from Halix so that AZ is forced to break its contract with the UK and export to the EU from the UK, thus grievously slowing our vaccine drive. Thus killing Britons and killing our economy.
It is time to tell them to do one. With a loaded gun
This is correct, but even I can see there will need to be some give and take here.
We should start with saying we don't want to give them anything, but after some negotiation, if we both end up with 50% of the output of the Belgian plant (and of course we have 100% of the UK plant), I think we won't have done too badly. If the Government wants to be ballsier than that, that's fine.
Bloomberg has reported that 1) The EU wants a "population share" of the AZN Dutch plant output (which the UK set up as part of the UK supply chain, with UK £££ and UK expertise) and 2) Will have the right to stop vaccine delivery to ANY country outside the EU from ANY manufacturer (for example, Pfizer) if that country has high vaccination rates and doesn't export to the EU. Guess who fits that profile?
I think I'm getting my plants confused, sorry - there is now a Dutch and a Belgian? Or I'm making the Belgian thing up? Not sure why we took the risk of putting another one in Holland rather than the UK.
The Belgian plant produces for the EU contract with AZNAB. The Helix plant was set up for the UK contract with AZNPLC. It will then supply doses to the EU after it has fulfilled its UK contractual obligations.
This is correct, but even I can see there will need to be some give and take here.
We should start with saying we don't want to give them anything, but after some negotiation, if we both end up with 50% of the output of the Belgian plant (and of course we have 100% of the UK plant), I think we won't have done too badly. If the Government wants to be ballsier than that, that's fine.
Bloomberg has reported that 1) The EU wants a "population share" of the AZN Dutch plant output (which the UK set up as part of the UK supply chain, with UK £££ and UK expertise) and 2) Will have the right to stop vaccine delivery to ANY country outside the EU from ANY manufacturer (for example, Pfizer) if that country has high vaccination rates and doesn't export to the EU. Guess who fits that profile?
I think I'm getting my plants confused, sorry - there is now a Dutch and a Belgian? Or I'm making the Belgian thing up? Not sure why we took the risk of putting another one in Holland rather than the UK.
The Belgian plant produces for the EU contract with AZNAB. The Helix plant was set up for the UK contract with AZNPLC. It will then supply doses to the EU after it has fulfilled its UK contractual obligations.
So the EU are basically stealing?
Pretty much. That an colossal self-inflicted reputational damage.
This is correct, but even I can see there will need to be some give and take here.
We should start with saying we don't want to give them anything, but after some negotiation, if we both end up with 50% of the output of the Belgian plant (and of course we have 100% of the UK plant), I think we won't have done too badly. If the Government wants to be ballsier than that, that's fine.
Bloomberg has reported that 1) The EU wants a "population share" of the AZN Dutch plant output (which the UK set up as part of the UK supply chain, with UK £££ and UK expertise) and 2) Will have the right to stop vaccine delivery to ANY country outside the EU from ANY manufacturer (for example, Pfizer) if that country has high vaccination rates and doesn't export to the EU. Guess who fits that profile?
I think I'm getting my plants confused, sorry - there is now a Dutch and a Belgian? Or I'm making the Belgian thing up? Not sure why we took the risk of putting another one in Holland rather than the UK.
The Belgian plant produces for the EU contract with AZNAB. The Helix plant was set up for the UK contract with AZNPLC. It will then supply doses to the EU after it has fulfilled its UK contractual obligations.
OK, thanks that makes it clearer. More negotiations - joy!
Hartlepool will shortly speak and I'll be listening very carefully.
Yes your rather weak attempt at expectations management there has fooled no-one. Everyone knows it will be a Labour hold on a low turnout.
Very few people here expect a Labour hold...
I have said so from the start as have many others. The majority of thoise forecasting a Labour loss have been on the left - some genuine no doubt, but others clearly playing politics. The seat has long been Labour and the tories only came moderately close last time because of the Brexit party. I am from the Sunderland area - and Hartlepool is more akin to those seats or Easington. It would be something of a political earthquake were it to go blue. Current polling simply does not support it.
Hartlepool isn't Sunderland. The Makems always elect a Labour MP and a Labour council. Hartlepool had a Tory MP in the 60s and its council now only has 8 Labour members on it.
Sunderland south had a Tory MP until 1963 - and I believe the council went blue for a while. You are misinformed.
And the north Norfolk coast returned Labour MPs in the 60s. Things change.
The much-vaunted vaccine export ban isn't happening and never was happening.
If you threaten something you dont mean it can happen unintentionally, and the threat can be as bad as the action.
Boris was rightly condemned by many over the internal market bill over just such threat/intention rather than the outcome which actually happened. To this day people reference the potential outcome he risked.
So no one gets brownie points for graciousness by threatening action then not taking that action.
Oh I entirely agree, I am simply making the point that the export ban ain't happening.
I, too, once thought as you did, because it's mental. But the French Europe Minister is on record upthread as saying, "we will block exports to the UK" (presumably in French), so quite frankly all bets are now off.
Comments
I think we're currently seeing about 25 icu admissions a day (I've had to do a bit of educated guesswork to get that number, it doesn't seem to be readily available when googled), which puts us at 6-7 doublings to peak capacity again. At a 10 day doubling, that tallies will the rest of my analysis, and suggests completely releasing everything and stopping vaccination would give us a peak that swamps the NHS in mid to late May.
Again, it's leads to the same basic conclusions - we can relax a lot of measures now without any risk of swamping the NHS and probably release everything except foreign travel (which is actually a different type of issue entirely, it doesn't drive R directly) by the middle of May unless the vaccination program stutters very badly in the next month or so. Boris's road map is far too unambitious.
A tour of Mexico would be great the Tijuana test would be great, I'd love to experience Baja California.
(Forced to resort to mobile)
And even thinking it is insane
Two years ago, you couldn't make comments like this unless by law, you were a white man over 40, wearing a blazer, holding a pint and having a fag on.
The more compelling argument is that a ban isn't in the EU's interest. The upside in terms of doses gained is miniscule, against the EU's population and the very large numbers of doses coming on stream shortly. It causes a huge amount of grief and is a distraction from the job of getting Europeans vaccinated.
If the latter, you're right, even seats like mine (Newcastle upon Tyne North) are potentially in play in the near future.
If Tice had gone for Barnsley East he'd probably have won, I also think labour would hold Barnsley East in a BE but they won't hold Hartlepool.
R0 was estimated at about 3.3 with the original variant, so doubling in about 3 days (which, from the 7-day average of deaths at the start of the first wave, looks about right for a reproductive period of 5 days and an R0 of 3.3..
The new variant is estimated at 50% more transmissible. For a doubling period of 10 days, we'd need R to be just over 1.4.
We have an uprating of 50% to R from B.1.1.1.7 and a downrating from increased immunity. We have to drop a long way to get an R of 1.4.
I'd much prefer Dr Rosena or Lisa as leader.
Yes there are lots of press stories speculating about it. Won't happen though.
Boris was rightly condemned by many over the internal market bill over just such threat/intention rather than the outcome which actually happened. To this day people reference the potential outcome he risked.
So no one gets brownie points for graciousness by threatening action then not taking that action.
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1374296045954404353
However all 3 Newcastle seats saw reduced Labour vote shares.
We need India to come up with the goods.
Not that I've heard of it, perhaps it has revenue also - @rcs1000?
Con 39%
Lab 37%
LD 9%
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-covid-vaccine-bmg-poll-b1821212.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
We should start with saying we don't want to give them anything, but after some negotiation, if we both end up with 50% of the output of the Belgian plant (and of course we have 100% of the UK plant), I think we won't have done too badly. If the Government wants to be ballsier than that, that's fine.
A few sites are for me as well.
Mostly banking sites (Lloyds and Coutts).
@Nigelb mentioned the net was down in his part of the world.
I got on Labour at 2.1, I think, which I thought was good value. I think 2 would still be good value. I'd say Lab at anywhere down to 1.8 would be value; below that not. Where do you draw the line?
I do remember that Sir Bob Worcester saying back about 15 years ago said the attribute the voters really don't like the Tories displaying is smugness, I wonder if it might be smugness about the vaccine is behind it?
It seems from what's been posted today that the UK is entitled contractually to 100% of the Halix vaccine doses until our order is fulfilled then the EU are due theirs - but the UK and EU are negotiating for a proportion of the doses instead with the threat of the blockade if an agreement isn't reached.
If an agreement is reached upon a threat of a blockade so the UK only gets say 25% of the doses instead of 100% then a "ban" may not have happened, but the contracts have been messed with.
The option is simple, would you like more of not very much or to get some of the jobs heading to Middlesbrough, Darlington and Redcar.
The last year of polling has been a reflection of the pandemic, when we were doing much worse than the Europeans on excess deaths Boris Johnson and the Tories were behind in the polls.
Something that is a major upgrade.
5 mins and the camera cuts you off.
No sitting around in corridors waiting for people to take 25 minutes.
No amateur orienteering around looking for the right classroom on a poorly photocopied floor plan. No worries about being overheard. No small talk with other parents you don't recognise.
And no traipsing off to school. Over and done in 20 minutes.
It is time to tell them to do one. With a loaded gun
https://twitter.com/NJ_Timothy/status/1374390047751868421?s=20
https://apply.army.mod.uk/
I mean. why the F not? If it saves British lives?
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56495463
Bloody slackers, only 95hrs / week, they should come and work for me, then they will know what hard work is...