317,000 second vaccinations per day required to keep pace with the twelve week requirement between now and the end of April. I think we'll be below that for a while but the 15 - 30th April could solely see second doses.
Look away now if you're in your 40s, the required second dose rate goes UP in May
That will likely depend on the numbers and types of vaccines available.
If Moderna and Novavax can be used they can be given as first doses while the Pfizer and AZN get used as second doses.
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
I don't think 'pleasure' is a feature of the brave new post-covid world.
It's as yet premature to bet the house on the reopening of outdoor hospitality on 12th April. I think case rates could start to be edging up again by then, and it very much depends on whether the Government is prepared to let them do so if death rates continue to fall.
There is the potential for a rapid unravelling of the Government's position if the open border with France causes a resurgence of cases and a penetration of the South African/Brazilian variants that are now widespread across the channel, leading to the current recovery timetable being pushed back. On past form, closing the French border will be talked about for another month or so before anything happens.
We've seen cases go sideways overall since the schools reopened, but they're now about to close for two weeks. I'd expect case rates to resume their decline with the schools closed for a bit and the cohort of the vaccinated continuing to grow.
The situation with variants and lax border control is concerning, but the spread of the virus is both slow and fast - any problems from that will not be evident here until after the April 12th reopening stage.
"Hey, you. Yeah, you. Younger adult. Person unlikely to be affected much by COVID. Whose job was disrupted while the retired were protected. And who hasn't had a jab, unlike the elderly. Stay out of the pub. It's only for the vaccinated."
I don't like it.
[As an aside, I won't be personally affected as I'm a massive introvert, which turns out to be a survival trait in 2020-1].
I actually don't like it anyway, even if everybody had been given the chance to be vaccinated. I'm doing a guest slot with The PB Libertines on this one. Just loitering at the back of the stage with a tambourine, no more than that, won't be trying to elbow out the Pete Doherty that is @Anabobazina and grabbing the mike or anything, but, yes, I'm there.
The great thing about beating the pandemic will be getting back to normal, and normal is not having to show proof of having had a medical procedure before you can have a pint down the pub. I also don't see the policing of it by pub landlords in this country as a practical proposition. It just feels wrong and I hope it doesn't happen. I don't think it will.
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
I see yet again the types predicting that Scots are about to join their English bredren in waging war on the EU are barking up the wrong tree. SNP majority and my Tories booted back to humiliating third forecast are looking good.
Scotland is divided, angry and intolerance abounds, it is not a good look
The polls are indicating a near 50/50 split and I just do not see this atmosphere calming for years to come
It just saddens me
The 4 years of turmoil post brexit vote would look comparatively simple.
As someone who loves Scotland and its people, the prospect of years of angry constitutional conflicts saddens me
Absolutely.
That’s why an argument of “it’ll all be fine and people will re-align and accept the result” just isn’t going to happen.
Particularly when some of the harder consequences become clear - I.e raising /adjusting spending to cover any deficit that arises.
Obviously the UK would have to do a lot in terms of moving assets like trident. But supposed we moved it to Cumbria - like Barrow in Furness. Surely the issue of having nuclear weapons literally next to Scotland still remains an issue
When I left school in Berwick I travelled to Edinburgh every day by train to work for six months
I would expect mass migration of Scots to the English side of the border if Scotland goes independent, as their taxation is likely to be much higher
And of course the question of passports and currency would come into it
I hardly believe I am writing this
It is already for higher rate taxpayers , starts at 43K and 41p in the pound , though lower at bottom end. I do fail to see how you think it will be higher than England though. High time people outside Scotland butted out and the UK had some democracy. If we want to run our own affairs and have higher or lower taxes then that is our decision , we should not be a colony to be held ransom by another country.
But you will join the EU ..... riiiight
If enough people want to , it is called democracy
That's fair - you just have to forget this part of your post then
"If we want to run our own affairs and have higher or lower taxes then that is our decision , we should not be a colony to be held ransom by another country."
Two corrections required here. One, no member state of the UK is a "colony". Each are, and always have been, independent sovereign nations, and they will continue to be such. They pool elements of sovereignty in the same way that we continue to do so to be part of NATO.
Second, Scotland is not a "colony" of UK, or more especially England. Neither is Wales or NI. As I have said many times before, Scots have historically been far more active in being colonisers per head of population than the English during the British Empire. Being a "colony" of England is just another bit of Scottish Nasty Party fake history to stir up more racist hatred of "the English". I am sure it works on the gullible, but it is bullshit.
When I was a child in the sixties a common Scottish boast was The Scots ran the British Empire and indeed several of my relations had been employed in Tea Plantations in Ceylon - while others now live in Canada and Australia.
AIUI from history, Wales was conquered. Norn is a bit different, in that it was largely 'settled'.
Interesting article from Alex Bell, who knows Salmond and Sturgeon well, and how she is much more like him than she may care to admit. When you watch her in action, she really is increasingly like Thatcher (without the self-deprecating humour and love of consensus).
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
Really can’t see that happening.
If nothing else, the younger MPs will all want a photo in their local with a pint, on the day the pubs reopen.
Anyone who thinks that younger people aren't at significant risk from Covid-19 should read this piece by a 29-year old. He didn't die, and he wasn't hospitalised, so he doesn't even make the statistics for severe Covid. Nonetheless...
"Hey, you. Yeah, you. Younger adult. Person unlikely to be affected much by COVID. Whose job was disrupted while the retired were protected. And who hasn't had a jab, unlike the elderly. Stay out of the pub. It's only for the vaccinated."
I don't like it.
[As an aside, I won't be personally affected as I'm a massive introvert, which turns out to be a survival trait in 2020-1].
I actually don't like it anyway, even if everybody had been given the chance to be vaccinated. I'm doing a guest slot with The PB Libertines on this one. Just loitering at the back of the stage with a tambourine, no more than that, won't be trying to elbow out the Pete Doherty that is @Anabobazina and grabbing the mike or anything, but, yes, I'm there.
The great thing about beating the pandemic will be getting back to normal, and normal is not having to show proof of having had a medical procedure before you can have a pint down the pub. I also don't see the policing of it by pub landlords in this country as a practical proposition. It just feels wrong and I hope it doesn't happen. I don't think it will.
There are five drinking establishments in this small town. One of the landlords won't give a damn. He didn't before, got fined and did a crowdfund. The only person who won't be able to get into the Con Club is the manager; everyone else will have been done. Two will be 'fairly' careful, taking regulars word that they've had a test. One is a chain and it's mostly only newcomers and visitors who go there anyway.
I've said before that the EU really seems to suffer from having no heavy-hitting former PMs/Presidents with the standing to say "hold on a minute....".
I've said before that the EU really seems to suffer from having no heavy-hitting former PMs/Presidents with the standing to say "hold on a minute....".
Interesting article from Alex Bell, who knows Salmond and Sturgeon well, and how she is much more like him than she may care to admit. When you watch her in action, she really is increasingly like Thatcher (without the self-deprecating humour and love of consensus).
I've said before that the EU really seems to suffer from having no heavy-hitting former PMs/Presidents with the standing to say "hold on a minute....".
We could lend them Tony Blair.
You mean you'd want him back afterwards?
It could be a very long lend..... He could become the replacement for UvdL. Maybe Malta or someone could make him a citizen?
"Hey, you. Yeah, you. Younger adult. Person unlikely to be affected much by COVID. Whose job was disrupted while the retired were protected. And who hasn't had a jab, unlike the elderly. Stay out of the pub. It's only for the vaccinated."
I don't like it.
[As an aside, I won't be personally affected as I'm a massive introvert, which turns out to be a survival trait in 2020-1].
I actually don't like it anyway, even if everybody had been given the chance to be vaccinated. I'm doing a guest slot with The PB Libertines on this one. Just loitering at the back of the stage with a tambourine, no more than that, won't be trying to elbow out the Pete Doherty that is @Anabobazina and grabbing the mike or anything, but, yes, I'm there.
The great thing about beating the pandemic will be getting back to normal, and normal is not having to show proof of having had a medical procedure before you can have a pint down the pub. I also don't see the policing of it by pub landlords in this country as a practical proposition. It just feels wrong and I hope it doesn't happen. I don't think it will.
There are five drinking establishments in this small town. One of the landlords won't give a damn. He didn't before, got fined and did a crowdfund. The only person who won't be able to get into the Con Club is the manager; everyone else will have been done. Two will be 'fairly' careful, taking regulars word that they've had a test. One is a chain and it's mostly only newcomers and visitors who go there anyway.
Yes, this is the thing. You get all sorts running pubs and so many different types of establishments. Some are quasi restaurants. Some are all "cafe society". Some are still boozers full of boozers - packet of nuts if you need a nibble with your 4th pint.
It's as yet premature to bet the house on the reopening of outdoor hospitality on 12th April. I think case rates could start to be edging up again by then, and it very much depends on whether the Government is prepared to let them do so if death rates continue to fall.
There is the potential for a rapid unravelling of the Government's position if the open border with France causes a resurgence of cases and a penetration of the South African/Brazilian variants that are now widespread across the channel, leading to the current recovery timetable being pushed back. On past form, closing the French border will be talked about for another month or so before anything happens.
We've seen cases go sideways overall since the schools reopened, but they're now about to close for two weeks. I'd expect case rates to resume their decline with the schools closed for a bit and the cohort of the vaccinated continuing to grow.
The situation with variants and lax border control is concerning, but the spread of the virus is both slow and fast - any problems from that will not be evident here until after the April 12th reopening stage.
The issue with variants is wildly misunderstood AIUI. Variants may well show a degree of antibody escape from vaccines but it is vanishingly unlikely that they will evade the body's secondary T-Cell response. Now, admittedly that is not ideal, people will be infected, but the virus will mutate on our shores anyway and the antibody response will decrease over time even with the strains we have anyway. Vaccination should push this virus into the list of many coronaviruses we will be infected by on multiple occasions but won't actually cause us serious harm for the rest of ur lives.
A more nuanced article on the move by Intel into the chip foundry business.
Samsung on high alert over Intel's foundry investments https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2021/03/133_306026.html ...Industry analysts said the U.S. is implementing two strategies in order to protect the supply chain of local chip industry ― supporting U.S. chip makers to build new factories there and asking overseas companies to establish new factories in the U.S.
As seen in the current memory chip industry, which is controlled by the big three companies ― Samsung, SK hynix and Micron ― in the long run the foundry business will be dominated by TSMC of Taiwan, Samsung and Intel.
The U.S. has already asked the two leading foundry makers ― TSMC of Taiwan and Samsung ― to build new plants there. In response, TSMC already unveiled plans in 2020 to build a $12 billion chip plant in Arizona this year and Samsung is mulling over possible sites for its new chip-making factories.
Kim Young-woo, an analyst at SK Securities, said the U.S. and Europe will increasingly try to provide incentives to Samsung and TSMC as having their new plants in their countries is the most efficient way of reducing their reliance on Asian countries...
The Intel move is the only way that they can stay in the game - note the whining from the stock market "experts" about "over investment" and the compliments on the strategy from people in the industry.
Absolutely - and there's undoubtedly sufficient worldwide demand to support the investment in the near term. Some are suggesting they might have been better splitting the company completely into separate businesses, rather than having the foundry side as a subsidiary. Time will tell if the current arrangement is a handicap or not.
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
Mr. kinabalu, I agree. The whole point of vaccination is to return us to a semblance of normality.
As it happens, I personally will be staying cautious for a while, probably do outdoors hospitality only until winter, but I do think we should jettison the paraphernalia of the pandemic as soon as we can. So I hope we don't see 'vaxports' except for international travel.
"08:22 Some positive news from a hospital in Nottingham...
Mark Simmonds, who works in critical care for Nottingham University Hospitals Trust, has shared a photograph from Queen's Medical Centre.
A whiteboard at the hospital shows there are no coronavirus patients left in the hospital's COVID ICU.
Mr Simmonds explained three purpose-made COVID ICUs were created at the hospital during the peak. Two have closed already, while the last patients left this final one yesterday.
"It will now be thoroughly cleaned and then reopen as an extension to our existing ICU whilst covid numbers remain low," Mr Simmonds said."
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
Yes, it certainly smells like that. And if so, it bloody stinks.
The pettifogging obsession with restrictions needs to go. Soon.
"Denmark to extend its suspension of AstraZeneca vaccine rollout by three weeks - local broadcaster
TV2 is reporting use of the vaccine will continue to be paused until at least mid-April, citing government sources. Several European countries temporarily paused rollout of the vaccine following reports of rare blood clotting incidents. Since then, the EU's medicines regulator has said the vaccine is both safe and effective, and it has not found a causal link."
Oh now presidency of the United States 2024 - 2028 is likely a job the crop of female potential/possible/likely/unlikely/has been/never were candidates - Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Nikki Hayley, KAMALA HARRIS would do better than the possible men - Biden, Trump, Trump Jr, De Santis, Buttigieg in aggregate.
Starting with peeing standing up, going on through most athletic sports and ending with serial killing, men beat women in so many ways.
If Trump spouted that nonsense, the whole Twatterati would descend on him.
I'd have thought that 'impregnate a woman' would be pretty high on the list..
I thought about that, but female doctors can do artificial insemination can't they? And for the other aspects of the act, my female friends tell me that plastic substitutes work as well or better ...
It's as yet premature to bet the house on the reopening of outdoor hospitality on 12th April. I think case rates could start to be edging up again by then, and it very much depends on whether the Government is prepared to let them do so if death rates continue to fall.
There is the potential for a rapid unravelling of the Government's position if the open border with France causes a resurgence of cases and a penetration of the South African/Brazilian variants that are now widespread across the channel, leading to the current recovery timetable being pushed back. On past form, closing the French border will be talked about for another month or so before anything happens.
We've seen cases go sideways overall since the schools reopened, but they're now about to close for two weeks. I'd expect case rates to resume their decline with the schools closed for a bit and the cohort of the vaccinated continuing to grow.
The situation with variants and lax border control is concerning, but the spread of the virus is both slow and fast - any problems from that will not be evident here until after the April 12th reopening stage.
The issue with variants is wildly misunderstood AIUI. Variants may well show a degree of antibody escape from vaccines but it is vanishingly unlikely that they will evade the body's secondary T-Cell response. Now, admittedly that is not ideal, people will be infected, but the virus will mutate on our shores anyway and the antibody response will decrease over time even with the strains we have anyway. Vaccination should push this virus into the list of many coronaviruses we will be infected by on multiple occasions but won't actually cause us serious harm for the rest of ur lives.
This a thousand times. It depresses me deeply how many terrible articles are written scaremongering about variants.
"Denmark to extend its suspension of AstraZeneca vaccine rollout by three weeks - local broadcaster
TV2 is reporting use of the vaccine will continue to be paused until at least mid-April, citing government sources. Several European countries temporarily paused rollout of the vaccine following reports of rare blood clotting incidents. Since then, the EU's medicines regulator has said the vaccine is both safe and effective, and it has not found a causal link."
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
That would be bollocks if it happens, but you seem to be arguing against something that's not been suggested. So long as restrictions are restricted by 21 June that's the end of the matter for that.
As for publicans having the right to refuse service, that is true but not unqualified. There's a reason publicans can't eg have a policy of "No blacks, no Irish". I'm not aware of any pub currently or previously checking for medical status and that is a personal matter that pubs may not be allowed to ask about unless they're permitted to ask about it.
Your daughter may want to welcome everyone, but a hypothetical wet led pub down the road might have an elderly, more vulnerable client base whose customers want them to ensure everyone who comes in is vaccinated. Why should that wet pub be refused the right to ask if that is what they want to do?
As a father of two young girls I'm curious which jobs you would say they can't do as well as men?
Women can be Prime Ministers, Generals, Executives, Doctors, Teachers, Scientists . . . what practically can women not do? 🤔
Not much use here, but granted that's a bit of a niche case.
There are clearly lots of things (and the other way, men are not very good at growing babies...). He'd have been better saying 'job' rather than 'thing', but it's just a speech. Do we get over-excited about Benjamin Franklin asserting that "you can do anything you set your mind to"? That's also demonstrably false, no matter how hard I try I'll never be an olympic gold medalist swimmer, from this point (I'm too old and I haven't trained hard enough) but I think we all get what he meant.
What jobs can a woman not do as well as a man? Extreme weight lifting, maybe some of the ultra-marathon stuff, some/many of the elite sports that are very dependent on strength/power. But for anything that goes beyond pure physical strength? Best soldier? It's more than just strength/endurance, it's making the right decisions.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
I'm sorry, but that is total nonsense. You've got it completely the wrong way round. It's a possible measure to make pubs (and theatres and concert halls and sports venues) viable, as an alternative to social distancing which wrecks the business model of many businesses. Of course it would be better if we can abandon all constraints, and that is the hope of the government as well as everyone else, but there's no point engaging in fantasy; if the virus is not fully under control, then some measures may still be needed. The choice then might be (a) close the pub completely, (b) open it but with severe social distancing rules, or (c) open it without those restrictions, but allow entry only to those who are vaccinated or tested. If that's the choice, why should the proprietor not be allowed to select (c), which saves her business? Would you prefer (a)?
It's as yet premature to bet the house on the reopening of outdoor hospitality on 12th April. I think case rates could start to be edging up again by then, and it very much depends on whether the Government is prepared to let them do so if death rates continue to fall.
There is the potential for a rapid unravelling of the Government's position if the open border with France causes a resurgence of cases and a penetration of the South African/Brazilian variants that are now widespread across the channel, leading to the current recovery timetable being pushed back. On past form, closing the French border will be talked about for another month or so before anything happens.
We've seen cases go sideways overall since the schools reopened, but they're now about to close for two weeks. I'd expect case rates to resume their decline with the schools closed for a bit and the cohort of the vaccinated continuing to grow.
The situation with variants and lax border control is concerning, but the spread of the virus is both slow and fast - any problems from that will not be evident here until after the April 12th reopening stage.
The issue with variants is wildly misunderstood AIUI. Variants may well show a degree of antibody escape from vaccines but it is vanishingly unlikely that they will evade the body's secondary T-Cell response. Now, admittedly that is not ideal, people will be infected, but the virus will mutate on our shores anyway and the antibody response will decrease over time even with the strains we have anyway. Vaccination should push this virus into the list of many coronaviruses we will be infected by on multiple occasions but won't actually cause us serious harm for the rest of ur lives.
This a thousand times. It depresses me deeply how many terrible articles are written scaremongering about variants.
"It depresses me deeply how many terrible articles are written scaremongering about variants"
Read up on the horrible backstory of the "X causes cancer!" , "Y cures cancer!" news industry. The scare and hope stories are written according to a formula to create a roller coaster of emotion. Targeting cancer sufferers and their families....
It doesn't really depress me - more the "War kills X in Africa" level of resignation to The Same Shit, Different Day.
Not that strange considering what he's talking about and going on to speak about female Four Star Generals.
It's totally sexist. He's saying women are equal or better than men at all things, that there is literally nothing a man can do better than a woman.
It really isn't. He didn't say all women, or all men. His point, made with characteristic imprecision, is that for any given task women should be considered on their merits, as it's quite possibly that the women candidate will be the best.
There will be plenty more material from Biden for the PB pedants to get wound up over. It's the way he communicates. Why anyone is getting wound up about it is beyond me.
C'mon chaps. Joe B was just seeking a catchy way to express the sentiment that he's four square behind women's emancipation and has zero tolerance for gender stereotyping. There's no need to go all spluttery about it. Take him seriously not literally.
Not that strange considering what he's talking about and going on to speak about female Four Star Generals.
It's totally sexist. He's saying women are equal or better than men at all things, that there is literally nothing a man can do better than a woman.
It really isn't. He didn't say all women, or all men. His point, made with characteristic imprecision, is that for any given task women should be considered on their merits, as it's quite possibly that the women candidate will be the best.
There will be plenty more material from Biden for the PB pedants to get wound up over. It's the way he communicates. Why anyone is getting wound up about it is beyond me.
Unless the tweet isn't accurate, he said "there is no thing a man can do that a woman can't do as well or better", which implies the reverse is not true.
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
That would be bollocks if it happens, but you seem to be arguing against something that's not been suggested. So long as restrictions are restricted by 21 June that's the end of the matter for that.
As for publicans having the right to refuse service, that is true but not unqualified. There's a reason publicans can't eg have a policy of "No blacks, no Irish". I'm not aware of any pub currently or previously checking for medical status and that is a personal matter that pubs may not be allowed to ask about unless they're permitted to ask about it.
Your daughter may want to welcome everyone, but a hypothetical wet led pub down the road might have an elderly, more vulnerable client base whose customers want them to ensure everyone who comes in is vaccinated. Why should that wet pub be refused the right to ask if that is what they want to do?
It should be personal choice for everyone.
As Cyclefree pointed out, it is. ...Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please...
Not that strange considering what he's talking about and going on to speak about female Four Star Generals.
It's totally sexist. He's saying women are equal or better than men at all things, that there is literally nothing a man can do better than a woman.
It really isn't. He didn't say all women, or all men. His point, made with characteristic imprecision, is that for any given task women should be considered on their merits, as it's quite possibly that the women candidate will be the best.
There will be plenty more material from Biden for the PB pedants to get wound up over. It's the way he communicates. Why anyone is getting wound up about it is beyond me.
"Not a single thing" - it's not about all men or all women. It's about any human activity.
It's as yet premature to bet the house on the reopening of outdoor hospitality on 12th April. I think case rates could start to be edging up again by then, and it very much depends on whether the Government is prepared to let them do so if death rates continue to fall.
There is the potential for a rapid unravelling of the Government's position if the open border with France causes a resurgence of cases and a penetration of the South African/Brazilian variants that are now widespread across the channel, leading to the current recovery timetable being pushed back. On past form, closing the French border will be talked about for another month or so before anything happens.
We've seen cases go sideways overall since the schools reopened, but they're now about to close for two weeks. I'd expect case rates to resume their decline with the schools closed for a bit and the cohort of the vaccinated continuing to grow.
The situation with variants and lax border control is concerning, but the spread of the virus is both slow and fast - any problems from that will not be evident here until after the April 12th reopening stage.
The issue with variants is wildly misunderstood AIUI. Variants may well show a degree of antibody escape from vaccines but it is vanishingly unlikely that they will evade the body's secondary T-Cell response. Now, admittedly that is not ideal, people will be infected, but the virus will mutate on our shores anyway and the antibody response will decrease over time even with the strains we have anyway. Vaccination should push this virus into the list of many coronaviruses we will be infected by on multiple occasions but won't actually cause us serious harm for the rest of ur lives.
This a thousand times. It depresses me deeply how many terrible articles are written scaremongering about variants.
Even for those on here who are big lockdown/don't leave the country fans, none has shown where or when the accepted science changed from the vaccines being effective or only slightly less effective against variants to them not being effective against variants.
As a father of two young girls I'm curious which jobs you would say they can't do as well as men?
Women can be Prime Ministers, Generals, Executives, Doctors, Teachers, Scientists . . . what practically can women not do? 🤔
Not much use here, but granted that's a bit of a niche case.
There are clearly lots of things (and the other way, men are not very good at growing babies...). He'd have been better saying 'job' rather than 'thing', but it's just a speech. Do we get over-excited about Benjamin Franklin asserting that "you can do anything you set your mind to"? That's also demonstrably false, no matter how hard I try I'll never be an olympic gold medalist swimmer, from this point (I'm too old and I haven't trained hard enough) but I think we all get what he meant.
What jobs can a woman not do as well as a man? Extreme weight lifting, maybe some of the ultra-marathon stuff, some/many of the elite sports that are very dependent on strength/power. But for anything that goes beyond pure physical strength? Best soldier? It's more than just strength/endurance, it's making the right decisions.
Not that strange considering what he's talking about and going on to speak about female Four Star Generals.
It's totally sexist. He's saying women are equal or better than men at all things, that there is literally nothing a man can do better than a woman.
It really isn't. He didn't say all women, or all men. His point, made with characteristic imprecision, is that for any given task women should be considered on their merits, as it's quite possibly that the women candidate will be the best.
There will be plenty more material from Biden for the PB pedants to get wound up over. It's the way he communicates. Why anyone is getting wound up about it is beyond me.
Unless the tweet isn't accurate, he said "there is no thing a man can do that a woman can't do as well or better", which implies the reverse is not true.
What is it about 'characteristic imprecision' that you don't get ?
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
That would be bollocks if it happens, but you seem to be arguing against something that's not been suggested. So long as restrictions are restricted by 21 June that's the end of the matter for that.
As for publicans having the right to refuse service, that is true but not unqualified. There's a reason publicans can't eg have a policy of "No blacks, no Irish". I'm not aware of any pub currently or previously checking for medical status and that is a personal matter that pubs may not be allowed to ask about unless they're permitted to ask about it.
Your daughter may want to welcome everyone, but a hypothetical wet led pub down the road might have an elderly, more vulnerable client base whose customers want them to ensure everyone who comes in is vaccinated. Why should that wet pub be refused the right to ask if that is what they want to do?
It should be personal choice for everyone.
As Cyclefree pointed out, it is. ...Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please...
Except that's not as clear cut as that.
Yes a pub can refuse a troublemaker or refuse service for an individual if they want to do so, discriminating against groups based on characteristics is another matter.
A pub can't say "no blacks" because that would violate discrimination laws. A pub landlord can refuse to serve a black person if they have a reason to want to refuse service, they can't have a blanket policy of refusing all black people.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
I'm sorry, but that is total nonsense. You've got it completely the wrong way round. It's a possible measure to make pubs (and theatres and concert halls and sports venues) viable, as an alternative to social distancing which wrecks the business model of many businesses. Of course it would be better if we can abandon all constraints, and that is the hope of the government as well as everyone else, but there's no point engaging in fantasy; if the virus is not fully under control, then some measures may still be needed. The choice then might be (a) close the pub completely, (b) open it but with severe social distancing rules, or (c) open it without those restrictions, but allow entry only to those who are vaccinated or tested. If that's the choice, why should the proprietor not be allowed to select (c), which saves her business? Would you prefer (a)?
I think our rate of vaccination deployment makes all these discussions moot, particularly with the cautious dates for reopening, and the high uptake of the vaccine.
There are only going to be a few weeks where it might make a small difference. Why bother?
It's as yet premature to bet the house on the reopening of outdoor hospitality on 12th April. I think case rates could start to be edging up again by then, and it very much depends on whether the Government is prepared to let them do so if death rates continue to fall.
There is the potential for a rapid unravelling of the Government's position if the open border with France causes a resurgence of cases and a penetration of the South African/Brazilian variants that are now widespread across the channel, leading to the current recovery timetable being pushed back. On past form, closing the French border will be talked about for another month or so before anything happens.
We've seen cases go sideways overall since the schools reopened, but they're now about to close for two weeks. I'd expect case rates to resume their decline with the schools closed for a bit and the cohort of the vaccinated continuing to grow.
The situation with variants and lax border control is concerning, but the spread of the virus is both slow and fast - any problems from that will not be evident here until after the April 12th reopening stage.
The issue with variants is wildly misunderstood AIUI. Variants may well show a degree of antibody escape from vaccines but it is vanishingly unlikely that they will evade the body's secondary T-Cell response. Now, admittedly that is not ideal, people will be infected, but the virus will mutate on our shores anyway and the antibody response will decrease over time even with the strains we have anyway. Vaccination should push this virus into the list of many coronaviruses we will be infected by on multiple occasions but won't actually cause us serious harm for the rest of ur lives.
This a thousand times. It depresses me deeply how many terrible articles are written scaremongering about variants.
Even for those on here who are big lockdown/don't leave the country fans, none has shown where or when the accepted science changed from the vaccines being effective or only slightly less effective against variants to them not being effective against variants.
I can understand the abundance of caution but that is how pandemics end. Viruses are never eleminated - save for smallpox but even that's still in a variety of labs waiting to escape. There's conjecture that the 1889 pandemic was caused by a coronavirus that is still with us and the flu virus that causes the (even more catastrophic) 1918 panemic is still with us. Many on this board have probably caught both at one time or another. But we have immunity. The problem with SARS-COV2 is that it is completely novel.
Not that strange considering what he's talking about and going on to speak about female Four Star Generals.
It's totally sexist. He's saying women are equal or better than men at all things, that there is literally nothing a man can do better than a woman.
It really isn't. He didn't say all women, or all men. His point, made with characteristic imprecision, is that for any given task women should be considered on their merits, as it's quite possibly that the women candidate will be the best.
There will be plenty more material from Biden for the PB pedants to get wound up over. It's the way he communicates. Why anyone is getting wound up about it is beyond me.
Unless the tweet isn't accurate, he said "there is no thing a man can do that a woman can't do as well or better", which implies the reverse is not true.
What is it about 'characteristic imprecision' that you don't get ?
It's as yet premature to bet the house on the reopening of outdoor hospitality on 12th April. I think case rates could start to be edging up again by then, and it very much depends on whether the Government is prepared to let them do so if death rates continue to fall.
There is the potential for a rapid unravelling of the Government's position if the open border with France causes a resurgence of cases and a penetration of the South African/Brazilian variants that are now widespread across the channel, leading to the current recovery timetable being pushed back. On past form, closing the French border will be talked about for another month or so before anything happens.
We've seen cases go sideways overall since the schools reopened, but they're now about to close for two weeks. I'd expect case rates to resume their decline with the schools closed for a bit and the cohort of the vaccinated continuing to grow.
The situation with variants and lax border control is concerning, but the spread of the virus is both slow and fast - any problems from that will not be evident here until after the April 12th reopening stage.
The issue with variants is wildly misunderstood AIUI. Variants may well show a degree of antibody escape from vaccines but it is vanishingly unlikely that they will evade the body's secondary T-Cell response. Now, admittedly that is not ideal, people will be infected, but the virus will mutate on our shores anyway and the antibody response will decrease over time even with the strains we have anyway. Vaccination should push this virus into the list of many coronaviruses we will be infected by on multiple occasions but won't actually cause us serious harm for the rest of ur lives.
This a thousand times. It depresses me deeply how many terrible articles are written scaremongering about variants.
Even for those on here who are big lockdown/don't leave the country fans, none has shown where or when the accepted science changed from the vaccines being effective or only slightly less effective against variants to them not being effective against variants.
I can understand the abundance of caution but that is how pandemics end. Viruses are never eleminated - save for smallpox but even that's still in a variety of labs waiting to escape. There's conjecture that the 1889 pandemic was caused by a coronavirus that is still with us and the flu virus that causes the (even more catastrophic) 1918 panemic is still with us. Many on this board have probably caught both at one time or another. But we have immunity. The problem with SARS-COV2 is that it is completely novel.
Catching the virus after vaccination shouldn't be a worry for most people. Before, as Nabavi's piece pointed out - it is.
Interest-free government loans should be made available to help up to a million households buy electric cars over the next two years, the shadow business secretary, Ed Miliband, is to argue.
Focussing on the wrong thing, as ever. If government want to get a million electric cars on the road, what they should be investing in is electric vehicle infrastructure.
Not to mention a significant number of power stations to provide the necessary energy which right simply now isn't available and is unlikely to be so for the foreseeable future. A small detail I know, but one that needs to be tackled before petrol & diesel are withdrawn. Oh and btw, where are all those many billions of tax going to come from to replace the current excise duty on fossil fuels?
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
That would be bollocks if it happens, but you seem to be arguing against something that's not been suggested. So long as restrictions are restricted by 21 June that's the end of the matter for that.
As for publicans having the right to refuse service, that is true but not unqualified. There's a reason publicans can't eg have a policy of "No blacks, no Irish". I'm not aware of any pub currently or previously checking for medical status and that is a personal matter that pubs may not be allowed to ask about unless they're permitted to ask about it.
Your daughter may want to welcome everyone, but a hypothetical wet led pub down the road might have an elderly, more vulnerable client base whose customers want them to ensure everyone who comes in is vaccinated. Why should that wet pub be refused the right to ask if that is what they want to do?
It should be personal choice for everyone.
As Cyclefree pointed out, it is. ...Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please...
Except that's not as clear cut as that.
Yes a pub can refuse a troublemaker or refuse service for an individual if they want to do so, discriminating against groups based on characteristics is another matter.
A pub can't say "no blacks" because that would violate discrimination laws. A pub landlord can refuse to serve a black person if they have a reason to want to refuse service, they can't have a blanket policy of refusing all black people.
Why this might need explicit legislation, is age a protected characteristic ?
A ban on the unvaccinated is for a few months, age based discrimination.
C'mon chaps. Joe B was just seeking a catchy way to express the sentiment that he's four square behind women's emancipation and has zero tolerance for gender stereotyping. There's no need to go all spluttery about it. Take him seriously not literally.
#malefragility
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
But outside the world of Lewis Carroll, we rather prefer if Leaders of the Free World use words as the rest of us understand them. Because if someone on the right had said something wildly and demonstrably false - or which was true, but made people feel uncomfortable - they would be hounded relentlessly.
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
That would be bollocks if it happens, but you seem to be arguing against something that's not been suggested. So long as restrictions are restricted by 21 June that's the end of the matter for that.
As for publicans having the right to refuse service, that is true but not unqualified. There's a reason publicans can't eg have a policy of "No blacks, no Irish". I'm not aware of any pub currently or previously checking for medical status and that is a personal matter that pubs may not be allowed to ask about unless they're permitted to ask about it.
Your daughter may want to welcome everyone, but a hypothetical wet led pub down the road might have an elderly, more vulnerable client base whose customers want them to ensure everyone who comes in is vaccinated. Why should that wet pub be refused the right to ask if that is what they want to do?
It should be personal choice for everyone.
As Cyclefree pointed out, it is. ...Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please...
Except that's not as clear cut as that.
Yes a pub can refuse a troublemaker or refuse service for an individual if they want to do so, discriminating against groups based on characteristics is another matter.
A pub can't say "no blacks" because that would violate discrimination laws. A pub landlord can refuse to serve a black person if they have a reason to want to refuse service, they can't have a blanket policy of refusing all black people.
Why this might need explicit legislation, is age a protected characteristic ?
A ban on the unvaccinated is for a few months, age based discrimination.
Age is a protected characteristic. It would be indirect discrimination for a few months and landlords would have to show that it was a proportionate means of acheiving a legitimate aim if challenged upon it.
Not that strange considering what he's talking about and going on to speak about female Four Star Generals.
It's totally sexist. He's saying women are equal or better than men at all things, that there is literally nothing a man can do better than a woman.
It really isn't. He didn't say all women, or all men. His point, made with characteristic imprecision, is that for any given task women should be considered on their merits, as it's quite possibly that the women candidate will be the best.
There will be plenty more material from Biden for the PB pedants to get wound up over. It's the way he communicates. Why anyone is getting wound up about it is beyond me.
Unless the tweet isn't accurate, he said "there is no thing a man can do that a woman can't do as well or better", which implies the reverse is not true.
What is it about 'characteristic imprecision' that you don't get ?
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
That would be bollocks if it happens, but you seem to be arguing against something that's not been suggested. So long as restrictions are restricted by 21 June that's the end of the matter for that.
As for publicans having the right to refuse service, that is true but not unqualified. There's a reason publicans can't eg have a policy of "No blacks, no Irish". I'm not aware of any pub currently or previously checking for medical status and that is a personal matter that pubs may not be allowed to ask about unless they're permitted to ask about it.
Your daughter may want to welcome everyone, but a hypothetical wet led pub down the road might have an elderly, more vulnerable client base whose customers want them to ensure everyone who comes in is vaccinated. Why should that wet pub be refused the right to ask if that is what they want to do?
It should be personal choice for everyone.
As Cyclefree pointed out, it is. ...Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please...
Except that's not as clear cut as that.
Yes a pub can refuse a troublemaker or refuse service for an individual if they want to do so, discriminating against groups based on characteristics is another matter.
A pub can't say "no blacks" because that would violate discrimination laws. A pub landlord can refuse to serve a black person if they have a reason to want to refuse service, they can't have a blanket policy of refusing all black people.
Why this might need explicit legislation, is age a protected characteristic ?
A ban on the unvaccinated is for a few months, age based discrimination.
Age is a protected characteristic. It would be indirect discrimination for a few months and landlords would have to show that it was a proportionate means of acheiving a legitimate aim if challenged upon it.
Looks like it'll be dodged by the err passports being "in development" and coming out only when jabs have been offered to everyone.
Not that strange considering what he's talking about and going on to speak about female Four Star Generals.
It's totally sexist. He's saying women are equal or better than men at all things, that there is literally nothing a man can do better than a woman.
It really isn't. He didn't say all women, or all men. His point, made with characteristic imprecision, is that for any given task women should be considered on their merits, as it's quite possibly that the women candidate will be the best.
There will be plenty more material from Biden for the PB pedants to get wound up over. It's the way he communicates. Why anyone is getting wound up about it is beyond me.
Unless the tweet isn't accurate, he said "there is no thing a man can do that a woman can't do as well or better", which implies the reverse is not true.
What is it about 'characteristic imprecision' that you don't get ?
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
That would be bollocks if it happens, but you seem to be arguing against something that's not been suggested. So long as restrictions are restricted by 21 June that's the end of the matter for that.
As for publicans having the right to refuse service, that is true but not unqualified. There's a reason publicans can't eg have a policy of "No blacks, no Irish". I'm not aware of any pub currently or previously checking for medical status and that is a personal matter that pubs may not be allowed to ask about unless they're permitted to ask about it.
Your daughter may want to welcome everyone, but a hypothetical wet led pub down the road might have an elderly, more vulnerable client base whose customers want them to ensure everyone who comes in is vaccinated. Why should that wet pub be refused the right to ask if that is what they want to do?
It should be personal choice for everyone.
As Cyclefree pointed out, it is. ...Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please...
Except that's not as clear cut as that.
Yes a pub can refuse a troublemaker or refuse service for an individual if they want to do so, discriminating against groups based on characteristics is another matter.
A pub can't say "no blacks" because that would violate discrimination laws. A pub landlord can refuse to serve a black person if they have a reason to want to refuse service, they can't have a blanket policy of refusing all black people.
Which is perhaps what the government is proposing in giving landlords a specific power. I'm not sure how necessary any of this is, though.
Not that strange considering what he's talking about and going on to speak about female Four Star Generals.
It's totally sexist. He's saying women are equal or better than men at all things, that there is literally nothing a man can do better than a woman.
It really isn't. He didn't say all women, or all men. His point, made with characteristic imprecision, is that for any given task women should be considered on their merits, as it's quite possibly that the women candidate will be the best.
There will be plenty more material from Biden for the PB pedants to get wound up over. It's the way he communicates. Why anyone is getting wound up about it is beyond me.
Unless the tweet isn't accurate, he said "there is no thing a man can do that a woman can't do as well or better", which implies the reverse is not true.
What is it about 'characteristic imprecision' that you don't get ?
DM notificaiton: 6 in 10 drinkers welcome no jab, no pint apparently.
They'll be massively skewed over 50, Tory core vote. It's going to happen.
So long as it's landlord's choice and not the law.
No jab, no staff, no pint.
It is an utterly stupid idea. My fear is that the government, having promised the lifting of restrictions, is going to keep on imposing them - regardless of whether they are workable and regardless of the economic consequences for those affected. They seem, frankly, to have it in for the hospitality sector and pubs/restaurants in particular.
Why no support for wet-led pubs, who have been abandoned? Why can't pubs sell takeaway alcohol while off-licences and other shops can? Why no support for breweries? Why, now, all this kite-flying about yet more restrictions?
If Daughter is allowed to open her place again (and the limited April opening is no good for her without the government allowing marquees to be classified as outside space, which they currently aren't) she will be welcoming customers with open arms not checking whether they've had jabs in them.
A pub/restaurant is a place of pleasure and relaxation not an out-patient's clinic.
That's your daughter's choice. That's why I said "so long as it's landlord's choice". Her choice. Her business, her choice, her decision.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so. Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
That would be bollocks if it happens, but you seem to be arguing against something that's not been suggested. So long as restrictions are restricted by 21 June that's the end of the matter for that.
As for publicans having the right to refuse service, that is true but not unqualified. There's a reason publicans can't eg have a policy of "No blacks, no Irish". I'm not aware of any pub currently or previously checking for medical status and that is a personal matter that pubs may not be allowed to ask about unless they're permitted to ask about it.
Your daughter may want to welcome everyone, but a hypothetical wet led pub down the road might have an elderly, more vulnerable client base whose customers want them to ensure everyone who comes in is vaccinated. Why should that wet pub be refused the right to ask if that is what they want to do?
It should be personal choice for everyone.
As Cyclefree pointed out, it is. ...Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please...
Except that's not as clear cut as that.
Yes a pub can refuse a troublemaker or refuse service for an individual if they want to do so, discriminating against groups based on characteristics is another matter.
A pub can't say "no blacks" because that would violate discrimination laws. A pub landlord can refuse to serve a black person if they have a reason to want to refuse service, they can't have a blanket policy of refusing all black people.
Why this might need explicit legislation, is age a protected characteristic ?
A ban on the unvaccinated is for a few months, age based discrimination.
Indeed. Protected characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
Health status isn't a protected characteristic but then healthcare is private, would asking to see someone's health vaccine status be legal normally or not? I don't know on that one.
But its not as simple as just saying "right to refuse service".
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
I'm sorry, but that is total nonsense. You've got it completely the wrong way round. It's a possible measure to make pubs (and theatres and concert halls and sports venues) viable, as an alternative to social distancing which wrecks the business model of many businesses. Of course it would be better if we can abandon all constraints, and that is the hope of the government as well as everyone else, but there's no point engaging in fantasy; if the virus is not fully under control, then some measures may still be needed. The choice then might be (a) close the pub completely, (b) open it but with severe social distancing rules, or (c) open it without those restrictions, but allow entry only to those who are vaccinated or tested. If that's the choice, why should the proprietor not be allowed to select (c), which saves her business? Would you prefer (a)?
I think our rate of vaccination deployment makes all these discussions moot, particularly with the cautious dates for reopening, and the high uptake of the vaccine.
There are only going to be a few weeks where it might make a small difference. Why bother?
There are some pubs that have little or no outside space. Also many restaurants. And the inside space they have is often not vast either.
C'mon chaps. Joe B was just seeking a catchy way to express the sentiment that he's four square behind women's emancipation and has zero tolerance for gender stereotyping. There's no need to go all spluttery about it. Take him seriously not literally.
#malefragility
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
But outside the world of Lewis Carroll, we rather prefer if Leaders of the Free World use words as the rest of us understand them. Because if someone on the right had said something wildly and demonstrably false - or which was true, but made people feel uncomfortable - they would be hounded relentlessly.
The great news is that you, Cookie of all people, on PB of all places, are now talking about what a woman can and can't do and, once you work it all through, you will come to the conclusion that they can just about, more or less, 100m vs Usain Bolt, etc aside, do anything and everything that men can.
My fear is that this kite-flying to make it a requirement eg if you don't ask you need to keep people 2 metres apart or some such bollocks. There is no need to say anything about this at all. Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
I'm sorry, but that is total nonsense. You've got it completely the wrong way round. It's a possible measure to make pubs (and theatres and concert halls and sports venues) viable, as an alternative to social distancing which wrecks the business model of many businesses. Of course it would be better if we can abandon all constraints, and that is the hope of the government as well as everyone else, but there's no point engaging in fantasy; if the virus is not fully under control, then some measures may still be needed. The choice then might be (a) close the pub completely, (b) open it but with severe social distancing rules, or (c) open it without those restrictions, but allow entry only to those who are vaccinated or tested. If that's the choice, why should the proprietor not be allowed to select (c), which saves her business? Would you prefer (a)?
False choice given herd immunity fast approaching us. Next!
Not that strange considering what he's talking about and going on to speak about female Four Star Generals.
It's totally sexist. He's saying women are equal or better than men at all things, that there is literally nothing a man can do better than a woman.
It really isn't. He didn't say all women, or all men. His point, made with characteristic imprecision, is that for any given task women should be considered on their merits, as it's quite possibly that the women candidate will be the best.
There will be plenty more material from Biden for the PB pedants to get wound up over. It's the way he communicates. Why anyone is getting wound up about it is beyond me.
"Not a single thing" - it's not about all men or all women. It's about any human activity.
Comments
If Moderna and Novavax can be used they can be given as first doses while the Pfizer and AZN get used as second doses.
https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1375028861549871107?s=20
The situation with variants and lax border control is concerning, but the spread of the virus is both slow and fast - any problems from that will not be evident here until after the April 12th reopening stage.
The great thing about beating the pandemic will be getting back to normal, and normal is not having to show proof of having had a medical procedure before you can have a pint down the pub. I also don't see the policing of it by pub landlords in this country as a practical proposition. It just feels wrong and I hope it doesn't happen. I don't think it will.
Of course we know they're effective in stopping symptoms and by virtue, death, but is there data on transmission?
Because if they do not effectively stop transmission then "vaccine passports" are rather pointless in any case.
https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1375036031922225152?s=20
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she can't check things even if she wants to do so.
Some people want to make the decision for her and say she must check things (which is what Israel is doing).
I am saying it needs to be her decision. If its her decision it is not a restriction. It is a freedom for her to choose, however she decides.
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/opinion/columnists/alex-bell/3001420/alex-bell-scotland-shown-to-be-in-a-rotten-state-as-gang-ethos-takes-over-government/
https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1374835878439350274
Demonstrably false.
If nothing else, the younger MPs will all want a photo in their local with a pint, on the day the pubs reopen.
Are they to protect staff? All vulnerable staff will have been vaccinated as part of Group 6.
Are they to protect punters? Well if you have a vaccine passport requirement then they are all going to be vaccinated anyway.
I just don't see why any company would want this.
https://callumjodwyer.medium.com/where-the-lava-meets-the-sea-7af743cccc0c
https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1375038161391325187?s=20
We could lend them Tony Blair.
The lesson learnt being "We didn't do anything badly enough to have to resign. So as you were..."
https://twitter.com/PietEeckhout/status/1375024861458878466?s=20
https://twitter.com/SpinningHugo/status/1375040194487971845?s=20
Women can be Prime Ministers, Generals, Executives, Doctors, Teachers, Scientists . . . what practically can women not do? 🤔
Starting with peeing standing up, going on through most athletic sports and ending with serial killing, men beat women in so many ways.
If Trump spouted that nonsense, the whole Twatterati would descend on him.
Some are suggesting they might have been better splitting the company completely into separate businesses, rather than having the foundry side as a subsidiary. Time will tell if the current arrangement is a handicap or not.
So this feels to me like the precursor to some new restriction which will render pubs unviable, especially as that dishonest malicious fool Gove is in charge of it.
The government promised legal restrictions lifted after 21 June. So remove them. Not replace them with more bossy boots micro-managing.
Some positive news from a hospital in Nottingham...
Mark Simmonds, who works in critical care for Nottingham University Hospitals Trust, has shared a photograph from Queen's Medical Centre.
A whiteboard at the hospital shows there are no coronavirus patients left in the hospital's COVID ICU.
Mr Simmonds explained three purpose-made COVID ICUs were created at the hospital during the peak. Two have closed already, while the last patients left this final one yesterday.
"It will now be thoroughly cleaned and then reopen as an extension to our existing ICU whilst covid numbers remain low," Mr Simmonds said."
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-news-live-latest-uk-coronavirus-updates-crucial-vote-on-keeping-emergency-lockdown-powers-for-longer-as-boris-johnson-faces-tory-rebellion-12255952
Asked if he thinks he's as good as Hamilton, Vettel, Raikkonen and Verstappen: "No, I'm better."
(BBC interview.)
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1375026676661370880?s=19
R is going through the bloody floor.
The pettifogging obsession with restrictions needs to go. Soon.
TV2 is reporting use of the vaccine will continue to be paused until at least mid-April, citing government sources. Several European countries temporarily paused rollout of the vaccine following reports of rare blood clotting incidents.
Since then, the EU's medicines regulator has said the vaccine is both safe and effective, and it has not found a causal link."
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-news-live-latest-uk-coronavirus-updates-crucial-vote-on-keeping-emergency-lockdown-powers-for-longer-as-boris-johnson-faces-tory-rebellion-12255952
100 metre sprinting and weightlifting ? Less so.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
As for publicans having the right to refuse service, that is true but not unqualified. There's a reason publicans can't eg have a policy of "No blacks, no Irish". I'm not aware of any pub currently or previously checking for medical status and that is a personal matter that pubs may not be allowed to ask about unless they're permitted to ask about it.
Your daughter may want to welcome everyone, but a hypothetical wet led pub down the road might have an elderly, more vulnerable client base whose customers want them to ensure everyone who comes in is vaccinated. Why should that wet pub be refused the right to ask if that is what they want to do?
It should be personal choice for everyone.
What jobs can a woman not do as well as a man? Extreme weight lifting, maybe some of the ultra-marathon stuff, some/many of the elite sports that are very dependent on strength/power. But for anything that goes beyond pure physical strength? Best soldier? It's more than just strength/endurance, it's making the right decisions.
Read up on the horrible backstory of the "X causes cancer!" , "Y cures cancer!" news industry. The scare and hope stories are written according to a formula to create a roller coaster of emotion. Targeting cancer sufferers and their families....
It doesn't really depress me - more the "War kills X in Africa" level of resignation to The Same Shit, Different Day.
He didn't say all women, or all men.
His point, made with characteristic imprecision, is that for any given task women should be considered on their merits, as it's quite possibly that the women candidate will be the best.
There will be plenty more material from Biden for the PB pedants to get wound up over. It's the way he communicates.
Why anyone is getting wound up about it is beyond me.
#malefragility
...Because all publicans now have the legal right to bar anyone they please...
He's an idiot. End of story.
Women are objectively a better choice than men for a potential Mars mission too.
We have a clear and sensible plan for lockdown:
- 12 April: outside
- 17 May: inside with restrictions
- 21 June: no restrictions
Everyone knows this and can plan for it. The criteria are being met and we are on the right track.
We do not need an implicit extension of lockdown such as mandating pubs and restaurants to check for vaccinations or COVID tests.
Boris was on Sky just now - he didn't exactly deliver a convincing denial of this possibility.
Stop this now Boris!!
I posted this upthread. Not only a decent impression, but explains Biden's communication mode pretty well.
https://twitter.com/robdelaney/status/1374788609983795204
But the problem wasn't the number of cases in those groups. It was very, very high CFR, for them.
Yes a pub can refuse a troublemaker or refuse service for an individual if they want to do so, discriminating against groups based on characteristics is another matter.
A pub can't say "no blacks" because that would violate discrimination laws. A pub landlord can refuse to serve a black person if they have a reason to want to refuse service, they can't have a blanket policy of refusing all black people.
'The EU have made a mess of it in a sweet way'
There are only going to be a few weeks where it might make a small difference. Why bother?
A ban on the unvaccinated is for a few months, age based discrimination.
But outside the world of Lewis Carroll, we rather prefer if Leaders of the Free World use words as the rest of us understand them.
Because if someone on the right had said something wildly and demonstrably false - or which was true, but made people feel uncomfortable - they would be hounded relentlessly.
Fernando is certainly in that number, but far from all.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1375049770943844354
I'm not sure how necessary any of this is, though.
Health status isn't a protected characteristic but then healthcare is private, would asking to see someone's health vaccine status be legal normally or not? I don't know on that one.
But its not as simple as just saying "right to refuse service".
See what Clever Joe did there?
That's where my vote goes.