I would have assumed that the level of vaccination in the EU would have been high enough to cover a lot of the very old (and therefore vulnerable) and so ensure their latest set of waves are not as bad as ours in January, but it will still clearly be pretty darn bad in several of them even as we get near the period where supplies are to improve.
I'm sure I've seen charts showing a vaccine effect in over 80s for France. I suspect that different priorities in different countries will have had an impact though. For example, the countries refusing to give AZN to over 65s or I heard (not from a reliable source admittedly) that Italy has been giving vaccines to huge numbers of priority workers who are not in vulnerable groups.
My ex, a year and a half younger than me (I’m 47) and her husband (the bloke she dumped me for) both just informed the world via FB that they got vaccinated. Gits.
I would have assumed that the level of vaccination in the EU would have been high enough to cover a lot of the very old (and therefore vulnerable) and so ensure their latest set of waves are not as bad as ours in January, but it will still clearly be pretty darn bad in several of them even as we get near the period where supplies are to improve.
I'm sure I've seen charts showing a vaccine effect in over 80s for France. I suspect that different priorities in different countries will have had an impact though. For example, the countries refusing to give AZN to over 65s or I heard (not from a reliable source admittedly) that Italy has been giving vaccines to huge numbers of priority workers who are not in vulnerable groups.
I presume France etc are still also following the 3 week vaccination strategy rather than the 12 week pseudo-science one we are? And thus not getting anywhere near the amount of widespread coverage.
My concern is that the rising caseload will be used as a pretext to keep unnecessary measures in place for an extended period of time, backed by the large fraction of the populace that is so shit scared of Covid that they may need to be patiently talked down for years, if that even proves possible at all.
We had a meeting at work this morning in which there was an enormous amount of clucking about the minutiae of mask wearing and social distancing in various situations, accompanied by the widespread conviction that this would all be some kind of horrible "new normal" and might be going on for a very long time. I wanted desperately to remind everyone that the Government has already said it's aiming to dump all restrictions on social contact in June, and that there's little if anything left to be achieved from maintaining any of the apparatus of suppression by late Summer. Oh, and that it doesn't fucking matter if you can't stay two meters apart when travelling in opposite directions down the same corridor, because you're only near the other person for about three damned seconds.
I bit my lip though. I'm not sure that the information would've been well-received.
Wales news saying Drakeford is warning of the need for an abundance of caution as Drakeford has just said in the news he is concerned about variants including Brazil and removing restrictions will need caution
He is following a zero covid policy and judging by the queues outside Asda today and general number of cars on the road he will not be able to hold this policy for long
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only wave to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Union matters are reserved to Westminster and the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998, the very Act which created Holyrood in the first place.
Scotland already has more home rule than any other country or region of the UK, England does not even have a Parliament at all and there is a distinct possibility that in 2024 the Tories would win a majority in England but Starmer would become PM thanks to support from Scottish and Welsh MPs
The Scotland Act puts the Sewell Convention on a statutory footing.
If Westminster simply ignores that and legislates how it wants, when it suits, on anything, by simply amending the Scotland Act, then what on earth is the point of it?
Scotland needs a sustainable long-term settlement. The current settlement is not that.
I thought the Conservative Party was supposed to be about long-term stability?
The Act doesn't do that re Sewell. It merely emits warm air. As was found in the runup to Brexit voting.
I know that in reality it doesn't mean anything but that's exactly my point.
If Westminster is never going to be willing to permanently cede power to the Scottish Parliament then DevoMax or similar will never be worth the paper it's written on.
Cannot be achieved without the total abandonment of the unwritten constitution and the evolutionary process which has characterised the development of the UK's system of governance for its entire history. If you want to get rid of the absolute power of the Crown in Parliament (by giving subsidiary bodies inviolable rights) then that means a written constitution, which would have to be passed by referendum and probably by majorities in all four constituent parts of the country to make it workable.
In order for that to happen, of course, there would first need to be a constitutional convention (that might drag on for years) in which all of the mainstream politicians, including the secessionist nationalist types, would somehow have to come to an agreement on what to include - although the whole process would probably collapse on the first morning when some bright spark insisted that any draft should include a trans rights clause. It's not going to happen.
I would have assumed that the level of vaccination in the EU would have been high enough to cover a lot of the very old (and therefore vulnerable) and so ensure their latest set of waves are not as bad as ours in January, but it will still clearly be pretty darn bad in several of them even as we get near the period where supplies are to improve.
I'm sure I've seen charts showing a vaccine effect in over 80s for France. I suspect that different priorities in different countries will have had an impact though. For example, the countries refusing to give AZN to over 65s or I heard (not from a reliable source admittedly) that Italy has been giving vaccines to huge numbers of priority workers who are not in vulnerable groups.
Yes - I saw a similar chart for France I’m sure.
It was an FT piece showing the vaccine effect in France on over 80s vs under 70s for cases, hospitalizations and deaths
My concern is that the rising caseload will be used as a pretext to keep unnecessary measures in place for an extended period of time, backed by the large fraction of the populace that is so shit scared of Covid that they may need to be patiently talked down for years, if that even proves possible at all.
We had a meeting at work this morning in which there was an enormous amount of clucking about the minutiae of mask wearing and social distancing in various situations, accompanied by the widespread conviction that this would all be some kind of horrible "new normal" and might be going on for a very long time. I wanted desperately to remind everyone that the Government has already said it's aiming to dump all restrictions on social contact in June, and that there's little if anything left to be achieved from maintaining any of the apparatus of suppression by late Summer. Oh, and that it doesn't fucking matter if you can't stay two meters apart when travelling in opposite directions down the same corridor, because you're only near the other person for about three damned seconds.
I bit my lip though. I'm not sure that the information would've been well-received.
I give it until Christmas when we’ll all be back to shagging on the photocopiers again.
My ex, a year and a half younger than me (I’m 47) and her husband (the bloke she dumped me for) both just informed the world via FB that they got vaccinated. Gits.
The term is vaxholes.
For example look at those vaxholes posting on Instagram that thanks to their jabs they have booked a trip to Spain for the summer.
Talking about vaxholes, I may have mentioned I'm getting my second jab next week.
That was posted on a previous thread yesterday. I tend to concur. I think, in terms of where they are relative to our Winter catastrophe, it's a week or two before Christmas in France.
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only wave to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Union matters are reserved to Westminster and the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998, the very Act which created Holyrood in the first place.
Scotland already has more home rule than any other country or region of the UK, England does not even have a Parliament at all and there is a distinct possibility that in 2024 the Tories would win a majority in England but Starmer would become PM thanks to support from Scottish and Welsh MPs
The Scotland Act puts the Sewell Convention on a statutory footing.
If Westminster simply ignores that and legislates how it wants, when it suits, on anything, by simply amending the Scotland Act, then what on earth is the point of it?
Scotland needs a sustainable long-term settlement. The current settlement is not that.
I thought the Conservative Party was supposed to be about long-term stability?
The Act doesn't do that re Sewell. It merely emits warm air. As was found in the runup to Brexit voting.
I know that in reality it doesn't mean anything but that's exactly my point.
If Westminster is never going to be willing to permanently cede power to the Scottish Parliament then DevoMax or similar will never be worth the paper it's written on.
Cannot be achieved without the total abandonment of the unwritten constitution and the evolutionary process which has characterised the development of the UK's system of governance for its entire history. If you want to get rid of the absolute power of the Crown in Parliament (by giving subsidiary bodies inviolable rights) then that means a written constitution, which would have to be passed by referendum and probably by majorities in all four constituent parts of the country to make it workable.
In order for that to happen, of course, there would first need to be a constitutional convention (that might drag on for years) in which all of the mainstream politicians, including the secessionist nationalist types, would somehow have to come to an agreement on what to include - although the whole process would probably collapse on the first morning when some bright spark insisted that any draft should include a trans rights clause. It's not going to happen.
That isn't true at all.
I've discussed this before.
Parliament can legislate to limit itself while retaining Parliamentary Sovereignty.
It's done it already when it legislated to allow the Commons to overrule the Lords. We didn't have a constitutional convention when we did that on a whim.
Parliament (Westminster) could legislate to change the procedure required for a bill to become an act, as it did with the Parliament Acts.
For example, it could require the Scottish Parliament to approve when legislating in certain subject areas, otherwise the act cannot become a law. Just as Parliament legislated to allow the Commons to overrule the Lords on a particular subject area: finance.
Had to happen I suppose - still positivity rate still well within control:
Nothing to worry about, the rise in cases is basically all in the under 18s and by LFT. Without that cases are still dropping.
I'm sure you're right, but do you have a source for that? I've never been able to find a breakdown of positive cases by age, or by PCR/LFT, but I'm probably just missing it.
I presume France etc are still also following the 3 week vaccination strategy rather than the 12 week pseudo-science one we are? And thus not getting anywhere near the amount of widespread coverage.
Yes, and they're holding doses back. So that means that - even in a best case scenario - they're sitting on hundreds of thousands of doses that could be in peoples' arms.
I would note that many other places also follow this strategy. And it's retarded.
Had to happen I suppose - still positivity rate still well within control:
Nothing to worry about, the rise in cases is basically all in the under 18s and by LFT. Without that cases are still dropping.
I'm sure you're right, but do you have a source for that? I've never been able to find a breakdown of positive cases by age, or by PCR/LFT, but I'm probably just missing it.
There is in the specific England data under cases. Filter by that and scroll down you'll see a graph on testing split by speciment date.
On the age split @Malmesbury does the daily graph and the main riser has been in the under 14s age group.
CNN Business) Dominion Voting Systems, a voting technology company that was the target of baseless conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, filed a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against the right-wing channel Fox News on Friday.
The company alleged that the network "recklessly disregarded the truth" and participated in a disinformation campaign against it because "the lies were good for Fox's business."
In the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election, then-President Donald Trump falsely asserted that the election had been rigged against him. His allies promoted outlandish conspiracy theories about Dominion to support Trump's false claims.
"Fox took a small flame" of disinformation and "turned it into a forest fire," Dominion said in its lawsuit.
"The truth matters. Lies have consequences," Dominion's lawsuit added. "Fox sold a false story of election fraud in order to serve its own commercial purposes, severely injuring Dominion in the process. If this case does not rise to the level of defamation by a broadcaster, then nothing does."
Dominion said that as a result of Fox's "orchestrated defamatory campaign" it had suffered "enormous and irreparable economic harm" and that its employees had been subject to death threats.
I presume France etc are still also following the 3 week vaccination strategy rather than the 12 week pseudo-science one we are? And thus not getting anywhere near the amount of widespread coverage.
Yes, and they're holding doses back. So that means that - even in a best case scenario - they're sitting on hundreds of thousands of doses that could be in peoples' arms.
I would note that many other places also follow this strategy. And it's retarded.
Tbf, the UK is basically alone following this strategy. The data in favour is incontrovertible, 80% protection from hospitalisation and 85% against death with one dose of Pfizer for over 70s. There's literally no reason for countries to follow any other strategy for any vaccine. The gap should be extended and JiT supply chains should be used. It's all upside.
OF course the question on here that dare not speak its name is how much do daily 'cases' need to rise for the government to go flaky on its timetable?
Another 2000? another 5000? another 10,000?
The tension is palpable. For people who are confident they are about to be given freedom, many posters aren't half cr8pping themselves.
I don't think they'll go flaky, but we can't trust them not to. My expectation is that things will probably continue to go according to plan, but I won't actually believe it until it happens.
CNN Business) Dominion Voting Systems, a voting technology company that was the target of baseless conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, filed a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against the right-wing channel Fox News on Friday.
The company alleged that the network "recklessly disregarded the truth" and participated in a disinformation campaign against it because "the lies were good for Fox's business."
In the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election, then-President Donald Trump falsely asserted that the election had been rigged against him. His allies promoted outlandish conspiracy theories about Dominion to support Trump's false claims.
"Fox took a small flame" of disinformation and "turned it into a forest fire," Dominion said in its lawsuit.
"The truth matters. Lies have consequences," Dominion's lawsuit added. "Fox sold a false story of election fraud in order to serve its own commercial purposes, severely injuring Dominion in the process. If this case does not rise to the level of defamation by a broadcaster, then nothing does."
Dominion said that as a result of Fox's "orchestrated defamatory campaign" it had suffered "enormous and irreparable economic harm" and that its employees had been subject to death threats.
I would have thought that the notion that Dominion's machines were corruptible would not have been a fault for many regimes in the world. That would have been a feature. Buy.
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only wave to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Union matters are reserved to Westminster and the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998, the very Act which created Holyrood in the first place.
Scotland already has more home rule than any other country or region of the UK, England does not even have a Parliament at all and there is a distinct possibility that in 2024 the Tories would win a majority in England but Starmer would become PM thanks to support from Scottish and Welsh MPs
The Scotland Act puts the Sewell Convention on a statutory footing.
If Westminster simply ignores that and legislates how it wants, when it suits, on anything, by simply amending the Scotland Act, then what on earth is the point of it?
Scotland needs a sustainable long-term settlement. The current settlement is not that.
I thought the Conservative Party was supposed to be about long-term stability?
The Act doesn't do that re Sewell. It merely emits warm air. As was found in the runup to Brexit voting.
I know that in reality it doesn't mean anything but that's exactly my point.
If Westminster is never going to be willing to permanently cede power to the Scottish Parliament then DevoMax or similar will never be worth the paper it's written on.
Cannot be achieved without the total abandonment of the unwritten constitution and the evolutionary process which has characterised the development of the UK's system of governance for its entire history. If you want to get rid of the absolute power of the Crown in Parliament (by giving subsidiary bodies inviolable rights) then that means a written constitution, which would have to be passed by referendum and probably by majorities in all four constituent parts of the country to make it workable.
In order for that to happen, of course, there would first need to be a constitutional convention (that might drag on for years) in which all of the mainstream politicians, including the secessionist nationalist types, would somehow have to come to an agreement on what to include - although the whole process would probably collapse on the first morning when some bright spark insisted that any draft should include a trans rights clause. It's not going to happen.
That isn't true at all.
I've discussed this before.
Parliament can legislate to limit itself while retaining Parliamentary Sovereignty.
It's done it already when it legislated to allow the Commons to overrule the Lords. We didn't have a constitutional convention when we did that on a whim.
Parliament (Westminster) could legislate to change the procedure required for a bill to become an act, as it did with the Parliament Acts.
For example, it could require the Scottish Parliament to approve when legislating in certain subject areas, otherwise the act cannot become a law. Just as Parliament legislated to allow the Commons to overrule the Lords on a particular subject area: finance.
Just to expand on this.
In order for a bill to become an act — the highest form of law in the land, it historically had to pass both the commons and the lords and receive royal assent.
A bill passed only by the commons could not become an act.
By enacting the Parliament Act, Parliament decided that it would change the procedure a bill had to go through to become an act. A bill could become an act without ever passing the Lords. Mental!
The Countryside Alliance argued that the Hunting Act was not a valid law because it had been passed by virtue of the Parliament Act and had not been through the lords. The House of Lords judicial committee told them to F off.
The same principle applies here. if Parliament used its sovereignty to pass a bill that changed the process of a bill becoming an act to require consent of a third-party in some circumstances, good luck arguing that is unconstitutional.
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only wave to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Union matters are reserved to Westminster and the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998, the very Act which created Holyrood in the first place.
Scotland already has more home rule than any other country or region of the UK, England does not even have a Parliament at all and there is a distinct possibility that in 2024 the Tories would win a majority in England but Starmer would become PM thanks to support from Scottish and Welsh MPs
The Scotland Act puts the Sewell Convention on a statutory footing.
If Westminster simply ignores that and legislates how it wants, when it suits, on anything, by simply amending the Scotland Act, then what on earth is the point of it?
Scotland needs a sustainable long-term settlement. The current settlement is not that.
I thought the Conservative Party was supposed to be about long-term stability?
The Act doesn't do that re Sewell. It merely emits warm air. As was found in the runup to Brexit voting.
I know that in reality it doesn't mean anything but that's exactly my point.
If Westminster is never going to be willing to permanently cede power to the Scottish Parliament then DevoMax or similar will never be worth the paper it's written on.
Cannot be achieved without the total abandonment of the unwritten constitution and the evolutionary process which has characterised the development of the UK's system of governance for its entire history. If you want to get rid of the absolute power of the Crown in Parliament (by giving subsidiary bodies inviolable rights) then that means a written constitution, which would have to be passed by referendum and probably by majorities in all four constituent parts of the country to make it workable.
In order for that to happen, of course, there would first need to be a constitutional convention (that might drag on for years) in which all of the mainstream politicians, including the secessionist nationalist types, would somehow have to come to an agreement on what to include - although the whole process would probably collapse on the first morning when some bright spark insisted that any draft should include a trans rights clause. It's not going to happen.
That isn't true at all.
I've discussed this before.
Parliament can legislate to limit itself while retaining Parliamentary Sovereignty.
It's done it already when it legislated to allow the Commons to overrule the Lords. We didn't have a constitutional convention when we did that on a whim.
Parliament (Westminster) could legislate to change the procedure required for a bill to become an act, as it did with the Parliament Acts.
For example, it could require the Scottish Parliament to approve when legislating in certain subject areas, otherwise the act cannot become a law. Just as Parliament legislated to allow the Commons to overrule the Lords on a particular subject area: finance.
No Parliament can bind the hands of its successor. Legislation bolstering the power of a subsidiary body can always be amended.
I presume France etc are still also following the 3 week vaccination strategy rather than the 12 week pseudo-science one we are? And thus not getting anywhere near the amount of widespread coverage.
Yes, and they're holding doses back. So that means that - even in a best case scenario - they're sitting on hundreds of thousands of doses that could be in peoples' arms.
I would note that many other places also follow this strategy. And it's retarded.
Tbf, the UK is basically alone following this strategy. The data in favour is incontrovertible, 80% protection from hospitalisation and 85% against death with one dose of Pfizer for over 70s. There's literally no reason for countries to follow any other strategy for any vaccine. The gap should be extended and JiT supply chains should be used. It's all upside.
There might have been a reason once, but then we kindly ran a 20m person trial for them.
Got pinged by the NHS COVID-19 app today along with most of my colleagues in the office. One person tested positive after being in the office yesterday and only a handful didn't get a notification from the app.
As a result, I'm now locked in until the end of Easter Sunday. Not the best news as I wanted to try and go for a country walk next weekend but at least hopefully this might be the last time this happens.
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only wave to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Union matters are reserved to Westminster and the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998, the very Act which created Holyrood in the first place.
Scotland already has more home rule than any other country or region of the UK, England does not even have a Parliament at all and there is a distinct possibility that in 2024 the Tories would win a majority in England but Starmer would become PM thanks to support from Scottish and Welsh MPs
The Scotland Act puts the Sewell Convention on a statutory footing.
If Westminster simply ignores that and legislates how it wants, when it suits, on anything, by simply amending the Scotland Act, then what on earth is the point of it?
Scotland needs a sustainable long-term settlement. The current settlement is not that.
I thought the Conservative Party was supposed to be about long-term stability?
The Act doesn't do that re Sewell. It merely emits warm air. As was found in the runup to Brexit voting.
I know that in reality it doesn't mean anything but that's exactly my point.
If Westminster is never going to be willing to permanently cede power to the Scottish Parliament then DevoMax or similar will never be worth the paper it's written on.
Cannot be achieved without the total abandonment of the unwritten constitution and the evolutionary process which has characterised the development of the UK's system of governance for its entire history. If you want to get rid of the absolute power of the Crown in Parliament (by giving subsidiary bodies inviolable rights) then that means a written constitution, which would have to be passed by referendum and probably by majorities in all four constituent parts of the country to make it workable.
In order for that to happen, of course, there would first need to be a constitutional convention (that might drag on for years) in which all of the mainstream politicians, including the secessionist nationalist types, would somehow have to come to an agreement on what to include - although the whole process would probably collapse on the first morning when some bright spark insisted that any draft should include a trans rights clause. It's not going to happen.
That isn't true at all.
I've discussed this before.
Parliament can legislate to limit itself while retaining Parliamentary Sovereignty.
It's done it already when it legislated to allow the Commons to overrule the Lords. We didn't have a constitutional convention when we did that on a whim.
Parliament (Westminster) could legislate to change the procedure required for a bill to become an act, as it did with the Parliament Acts.
For example, it could require the Scottish Parliament to approve when legislating in certain subject areas, otherwise the act cannot become a law. Just as Parliament legislated to allow the Commons to overrule the Lords on a particular subject area: finance.
No Parliament can bind the hands of its successor. Legislation bolstering the power of a subsidiary body can always be amended.
You're missing the point entirely. Such legislation wouldn't "bolster the power of a subsidiary body", it would simply change the procedure of what makes a law a law.
Parliament can absolutely bind the hands of its successor if it chooses. Ultimately parliament is sovereign and can make any law it chooses including changing the process of what makes a law a law, as it has already done.
This isn't some hypothetical scenario - it's already happened!
But they all just said the Kent variant was fiction and it was all becuase the UK paused it's lockdown and had loads of Christmas shoppers.
Honestly, they had the benefit of our experience and seeing our mistakes. All of the decisions across Europe have been a disaster.
Hang on, I thought they were worried about the Kent strain. Wasn't that why they shuttle the tunnel?
And yet here we are with European countries literally copying what we did at Christmas over Easter. 🤷♂️
It is astonishing. It was perfectly obvious that the big spike in the UK was caused by a combination of the new variant and the mistake Boris made in dithering over lockdown. Why on earth did the Germans, French and some other EU countries think they'd be immune to the same factors?
Even now they don't seem to have got it. I think they've been sidetracked by their vaccine jealousy, but vaccines are actually pretty much irrelevant to the immediate problem. They need to get the cases down fast, whatever they are going to be able to do on vaccinations.
OF course the question on here that dare not speak its name is how much do daily 'cases' need to rise for the government to go flaky on its timetable?
Another 2000? another 5000? another 10,000?
The tension is palpable. For people who are confident they are about to be given freedom, many posters aren't half cr8pping themselves.
If they are sensible, given where we are with vaccination of vulnerable populations, the metric will not be new cases, but hospitalizations.
Indeed, this is the approach that Boris will take.
Hospitalisations and deaths are falling. The vaccination programme is on track. The unlock timetable shall continue as planned.
How do you know that?
Cos the Government said that case rises would matter only if they risked the healthcare system. If they were lying then there’s nothing I can do about that.
OF course the question on here that dare not speak its name is how much do daily 'cases' need to rise for the government to go flaky on its timetable?
Another 2000? another 5000? another 10,000?
The tension is palpable. For people who are confident they are about to be given freedom, many posters aren't half cr8pping themselves.
I don't think they'll go flaky, but we can't trust them not to. My expectation is that things will probably continue to go according to plan, but I won't actually believe it until it happens.
IF we can't trust our government with our basic liberties then why the f8ck are they our government?
But they all just said the Kent variant was fiction and it was all becuase the UK paused it's lockdown and had loads of Christmas shoppers.
Honestly, they had the benefit of our experience and seeing our mistakes. All of the decisions across Europe have been a disaster.
Hang on, I thought they were worried about the Kent strain. Wasn't that why they shuttle the tunnel?
And yet here we are with European countries literally copying what we did at Christmas over Easter. 🤷♂️
It is astonishing. It was perfectly obvious that the big spike in the UK was caused by a combination of the new variant and the mistake Boris made in dithering over lockdown. Why on earth did the Germans, French and some other EU countries think they'd be immune to the same factors?
Even now they don't seem to have got it. I think they've been sidetracked by their vaccine jealousy, but vaccines are actually pretty much irrelevant to the immediate problem. They need to get the cases down fast, whatever they are going to be able to do on vaccinations.
Particularly as it is roughly 3 weeks infection to death and 3 weeks first dose to decent protection. Anything happening right now wrt new infections will not be affected by vaccinations happening now.
OF course the question on here that dare not speak its name is how much do daily 'cases' need to rise for the government to go flaky on its timetable?
Another 2000? another 5000? another 10,000?
The tension is palpable. For people who are confident they are about to be given freedom, many posters aren't half cr8pping themselves.
If they are sensible, given where we are with vaccination of vulnerable populations, the metric will not be new cases, but hospitalizations.
Indeed, this is the approach that Boris will take.
Hospitalisations and deaths are falling. The vaccination programme is on track. The unlock timetable shall continue as planned.
How do you know that?
Cos the Government said that case rises would matter only if they risked the healthcare system. If they were lying then there’s nothing I can do about that.
Here's a thought. You could stop defending them at every turn.
But they all just said the Kent variant was fiction and it was all becuase the UK paused it's lockdown and had loads of Christmas shoppers.
Honestly, they had the benefit of our experience and seeing our mistakes. All of the decisions across Europe have been a disaster.
Hang on, I thought they were worried about the Kent strain. Wasn't that why they shuttle the tunnel?
And yet here we are with European countries literally copying what we did at Christmas over Easter. 🤷♂️
It is astonishing. It was perfectly obvious that the big spike in the UK was caused by a combination of the new variant and the mistake Boris made in dithering over lockdown. Why on earth did the Germans, French and some other EU countries think they'd be immune to the same factors?
Even now they don't seem to have got it. I think they've been sidetracked by their vaccine jealousy, but vaccines are actually pretty much irrelevant to the immediate problem. They need to get the cases down fast, whatever they are going to be able to do on vaccinations.
I genuinely believe that the politicians all look at the Kent variant being more transmissive being made up by the UK as cover for our horrible winter situation. It's the only explanation for why they haven't taken it seriously.
Cartoons of Prophet Muhammad 'had been on school's curriculum for TWO YEARS
In that instance, they said, the lesson was taken by another teacher to the one suspended by the school after threats and protests by angry Muslims.
During that lesson two pupils were warned beforehand that the content would include caricatures of the Prophet and they were given the opportunity to leave the classroom if they were likely to be offended.
Check the 4 criteria: - the vaccine deployment programme continues successfully - evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated - infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS - our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern
But they all just said the Kent variant was fiction and it was all becuase the UK paused it's lockdown and had loads of Christmas shoppers.
Honestly, they had the benefit of our experience and seeing our mistakes. All of the decisions across Europe have been a disaster.
Hang on, I thought they were worried about the Kent strain. Wasn't that why they shuttle the tunnel?
And yet here we are with European countries literally copying what we did at Christmas over Easter. 🤷♂️
It is astonishing. It was perfectly obvious that the big spike in the UK was caused by a combination of the new variant and the mistake Boris made in dithering over lockdown. Why on earth did the Germans, French and some other EU countries think they'd be immune to the same factors?
Even now they don't seem to have got it. I think they've been sidetracked by their vaccine jealousy, but vaccines are actually pretty much irrelevant to the immediate problem. They need to get the cases down fast, whatever they are going to be able to do on vaccinations.
I genuinely believe that the politicians all look at the Kent variant being more transmissive being made up by the UK as cover for our horrible winter situation. It's the only explanation for why they haven't taken it seriously.
Sounds like repeating the mistake of the initial data from China....yes the gross numbers were fudged, but the percentages were about right, but the west definitely came up with reasons like lower density housing, better air quality, lower smoking rates, better healthcare as to why it wouldn't be that bad.
I wonder how much Germany doing well in the first wave has effected all these mistakes with the summer vacations, lockdown light and now this....when yes they did very well, but there was an element of luck that their initial outbreak was young people and fast to get testing up and running, kept numbers well down this time last year.
But they all just said the Kent variant was fiction and it was all becuase the UK paused it's lockdown and had loads of Christmas shoppers.
Honestly, they had the benefit of our experience and seeing our mistakes. All of the decisions across Europe have been a disaster.
Hang on, I thought they were worried about the Kent strain. Wasn't that why they shuttle the tunnel?
And yet here we are with European countries literally copying what we did at Christmas over Easter. 🤷♂️
It is astonishing. It was perfectly obvious that the big spike in the UK was caused by a combination of the new variant and the mistake Boris made in dithering over lockdown. Why on earth did the Germans, French and some other EU countries think they'd be immune to the same factors?
Even now they don't seem to have got it. I think they've been sidetracked by their vaccine jealousy, but vaccines are actually pretty much irrelevant to the immediate problem. They need to get the cases down fast, whatever they are going to be able to do on vaccinations.
Well, sadly, we didn't learn anything from the initial Italian spread, did we? I don't believe countries do learn from each others' experience that way. It's hard enough for individuals to do.
But they all just said the Kent variant was fiction and it was all becuase the UK paused it's lockdown and had loads of Christmas shoppers.
Honestly, they had the benefit of our experience and seeing our mistakes. All of the decisions across Europe have been a disaster.
Hang on, I thought they were worried about the Kent strain. Wasn't that why they shuttle the tunnel?
And yet here we are with European countries literally copying what we did at Christmas over Easter. 🤷♂️
It is astonishing. It was perfectly obvious that the big spike in the UK was caused by a combination of the new variant and the mistake Boris made in dithering over lockdown. Why on earth did the Germans, French and some other EU countries think they'd be immune to the same factors?
Even now they don't seem to have got it. I think they've been sidetracked by their vaccine jealousy, but vaccines are actually pretty much irrelevant to the immediate problem. They need to get the cases down fast, whatever they are going to be able to do on vaccinations.
I genuinely believe that the politicians all look at the Kent variant being more transmissive being made up by the UK as cover for our horrible winter situation. It's the only explanation for why they haven't taken it seriously.
The narrative was that Boris was in the same category as Trump and Bolsonaro, so everything was seen as a sign of incompetence from which no lessons could be learnt.
Cartoons of Prophet Muhammad 'had been on school's curriculum for TWO YEARS
In that instance, they said, the lesson was taken by another teacher to the one suspended by the school after threats and protests by angry Muslims.
During that lesson two pupils were warned beforehand that the content would include caricatures of the Prophet and they were given the opportunity to leave the classroom if they were likely to be offended.
OF course the question on here that dare not speak its name is how much do daily 'cases' need to rise for the government to go flaky on its timetable?
Another 2000? another 5000? another 10,000?
The tension is palpable. For people who are confident they are about to be given freedom, many posters aren't half cr8pping themselves.
If they are sensible, given where we are with vaccination of vulnerable populations, the metric will not be new cases, but hospitalizations.
Indeed, this is the approach that Boris will take.
Hospitalisations and deaths are falling. The vaccination programme is on track. The unlock timetable shall continue as planned.
How do you know that?
Cos the Government said that case rises would matter only if they risked the healthcare system. If they were lying then there’s nothing I can do about that.
Here's a thought. You could stop defending them at every turn.
I have no doubt long term readers of this board can educate you as to my less than stellar views on Boris Johnson. Nevertheless that is what they have said. If they are lying then they are lying. Nothing I can do about that.
But they all just said the Kent variant was fiction and it was all becuase the UK paused it's lockdown and had loads of Christmas shoppers.
Honestly, they had the benefit of our experience and seeing our mistakes. All of the decisions across Europe have been a disaster.
Hang on, I thought they were worried about the Kent strain. Wasn't that why they shuttle the tunnel?
And yet here we are with European countries literally copying what we did at Christmas over Easter. 🤷♂️
It is astonishing. It was perfectly obvious that the big spike in the UK was caused by a combination of the new variant and the mistake Boris made in dithering over lockdown. Why on earth did the Germans, French and some other EU countries think they'd be immune to the same factors?
Even now they don't seem to have got it. I think they've been sidetracked by their vaccine jealousy, but vaccines are actually pretty much irrelevant to the immediate problem. They need to get the cases down fast, whatever they are going to be able to do on vaccinations.
I genuinely believe that the politicians all look at the Kent variant being more transmissive being made up by the UK as cover for our horrible winter situation. It's the only explanation for why they haven't taken it seriously.
The narrative was that Boris was in the same category as Trump and Bolsonaro, so everything was seen as a sign of incompetence from which no lessons could be learnt.
Check the 4 criteria: - the vaccine deployment programme continues successfully - evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated - infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS - our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern
Item 3 is the possible get out clause. Can we all be absolutely sure that, the moment R exceeds 1 and a large fraction of the scientific community starts to panic about the disease finding out all the unvaccinated (or those for whom the vaccine hasn't worked very well) - and some of them have started panicking already, by the way - that the Government won't go all wobbly?
I guess three weeks ago we would have taken a rise of 2,411 week on week as the price for opening up the schools?
I'm honestly not sure how much of a rise there has actually been given the levels of testing we have of kids and teachers now and the rise in cases is majority in kids.
The Scottish Government doesn't have advisors in the traditional sense, it has mouthpieces. Nicola tells Devi what her advice to Nicola is going to be.
Check the 4 criteria: - the vaccine deployment programme continues successfully - evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated - infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS - our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern
Item 3 is the possible get out clause. Can we all be absolutely sure that, the moment R exceeds 1 and a large fraction of the scientific community starts to panic about the disease finding out all the unvaccinated (or those for whom the vaccine hasn't worked very well) - and some of them have started panicking already, by the way - that the Government won't go all wobbly?
It's specifically linked to hospitals this so not much of a get out clause, we're now under 4k in hospital and under 300 daily hospitalisations. The latter number will start to drop again and reach a very low number as the vaccine becomes effective for the more recent recipients and the second dose programme reaches the 15m in groups 1-4 over the next 4 or 5 weeks.
I guess three weeks ago we would have taken a rise of 2,411 week on week as the price for opening up the schools?
I'm honestly not sure how much of a rise there has actually been given the levels of testing we have of kids and teachers now and the rise in cases is majority in kids.
Anyone want this as the graph of their pay rises for the next few years?
My ex, a year and a half younger than me (I’m 47) and her husband (the bloke she dumped me for) both just informed the world via FB that they got vaccinated. Gits.
For some reason, your username and that anecdote made me think of this:
I can’t see how people can back the Tories at EVS in Hartlepool. Labour have always held the seat, retained it by 8% less than 18 months ago, and that was with Jez the turnoff in charge rather than Super Keir. There’s also no chance of Brexit not happening by voting Labour now, even if they don’t support it.
Yes, there maybe local factors that put off backing what seems enormous value Lab EVS, I’m not convinced, but I don’t get how people can think it’s a better than 50% chance the Tories will take it
Check the 4 criteria: - the vaccine deployment programme continues successfully - evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated - infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS - our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern
Item 3 is the possible get out clause. Can we all be absolutely sure that, the moment R exceeds 1 and a large fraction of the scientific community starts to panic about the disease finding out all the unvaccinated (or those for whom the vaccine hasn't worked very well) - and some of them have started panicking already, by the way - that the Government won't go all wobbly?
We can’t be sure. We can’t be sure that we won’t get hit by an asteroid tomorrow either. The only scientist I know who is panicking is that public health expert from Edinburgh Uni who is a professional doom merchant anyway. Any others? There is no reason to panic. We are two weeks into the schools going back. If this wasn’t expected then what was?
Check the 4 criteria: - the vaccine deployment programme continues successfully - evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated - infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS - our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern
Item 3 is the possible get out clause. Can we all be absolutely sure that, the moment R exceeds 1 and a large fraction of the scientific community starts to panic about the disease finding out all the unvaccinated (or those for whom the vaccine hasn't worked very well) - and some of them have started panicking already, by the way - that the Government won't go all wobbly?
I reckon it matters more whether the general public go all wobbly. Any restrictions won't hold if people are still feeling confident.
"We don't have supplies to send to everyone who has ordered them" may not be a great answer, but it is true, so not sure if a dispute resolution can solve that issue.
Comments
The vaccine should be cutting deaths, but then they've just been through a period of vaccine suspension and binning vaccines.
un trou de cul as one might say
https://twitter.com/GuillaumeRozier/status/1375504784535515136
He is following a zero covid policy and judging by the queues outside Asda today and general number of cars on the road he will not be able to hold this policy for long
In order for that to happen, of course, there would first need to be a constitutional convention (that might drag on for years) in which all of the mainstream politicians, including the secessionist nationalist types, would somehow have to come to an agreement on what to include - although the whole process would probably collapse on the first morning when some bright spark insisted that any draft should include a trans rights clause. It's not going to happen.
Bangladesh is 50 today.
For example look at those vaxholes posting on Instagram that thanks to their jabs they have booked a trip to Spain for the summer.
Talking about vaxholes, I may have mentioned I'm getting my second jab next week.
I've discussed this before.
Parliament can legislate to limit itself while retaining Parliamentary Sovereignty.
It's done it already when it legislated to allow the Commons to overrule the Lords. We didn't have a constitutional convention when we did that on a whim.
Parliament (Westminster) could legislate to change the procedure required for a bill to become an act, as it did with the Parliament Acts.
For example, it could require the Scottish Parliament to approve when legislating in certain subject areas, otherwise the act cannot become a law. Just as Parliament legislated to allow the Commons to overrule the Lords on a particular subject area: finance.
Honestly, they had the benefit of our experience and seeing our mistakes. All of the decisions across Europe have been a disaster.
Allegedly
I would note that many other places also follow this strategy. And it's retarded.
On the age split @Malmesbury does the daily graph and the main riser has been in the under 14s age group.
The company alleged that the network "recklessly disregarded the truth" and participated in a disinformation campaign against it because "the lies were good for Fox's business."
In the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election, then-President Donald Trump falsely asserted that the election had been rigged against him. His allies promoted outlandish conspiracy theories about Dominion to support Trump's false claims.
"Fox took a small flame" of disinformation and "turned it into a forest fire," Dominion said in its lawsuit.
"The truth matters. Lies have consequences," Dominion's lawsuit added. "Fox sold a false story of election fraud in order to serve its own commercial purposes, severely injuring Dominion in the process. If this case does not rise to the level of defamation by a broadcaster, then nothing does."
Dominion said that as a result of Fox's "orchestrated defamatory campaign" it had suffered "enormous and irreparable economic harm" and that its employees had been subject to death threats.
Another 2000? another 5000? another 10,000?
The tension is palpable. For people who are confident they are about to be given freedom, many posters aren't half cr8pping themselves.
In order for a bill to become an act — the highest form of law in the land, it historically had to pass both the commons and the lords and receive royal assent.
A bill passed only by the commons could not become an act.
By enacting the Parliament Act, Parliament decided that it would change the procedure a bill had to go through to become an act. A bill could become an act without ever passing the Lords. Mental!
In fact this was challenged in court and went all the way to the House of Lords. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Jackson)_v_Attorney_General
The Countryside Alliance argued that the Hunting Act was not a valid law because it had been passed by virtue of the Parliament Act and had not been through the lords. The House of Lords judicial committee told them to F off.
The same principle applies here. if Parliament used its sovereignty to pass a bill that changed the process of a bill becoming an act to require consent of a third-party in some circumstances, good luck arguing that is unconstitutional.
Hospitalisations and deaths are falling. The vaccination programme is on track. The unlock timetable shall continue as planned.
As a result, I'm now locked in until the end of Easter Sunday. Not the best news as I wanted to try and go for a country walk next weekend but at least hopefully this might be the last time this happens.
Parliament can absolutely bind the hands of its successor if it chooses. Ultimately parliament is sovereign and can make any law it chooses including changing the process of what makes a law a law, as it has already done.
This isn't some hypothetical scenario - it's already happened!
Even now they don't seem to have got it. I think they've been sidetracked by their vaccine jealousy, but vaccines are actually pretty much irrelevant to the immediate problem. They need to get the cases down fast, whatever they are going to be able to do on vaccinations.
Germany most definitely not following the science and haven't done for 7-8 months now.
In that instance, they said, the lesson was taken by another teacher to the one suspended by the school after threats and protests by angry Muslims.
During that lesson two pupils were warned beforehand that the content would include caricatures of the Prophet and they were given the opportunity to leave the classroom if they were likely to be offended.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9407425/Cartoons-Prophet-Muhammad-schools-curriculum-TWO-YEARS.html
The people in the canned laughter should sue.
Deaths -29% per week, will be 300 next week and below 200 per week mid April
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare
Hospitalisations - sub 5,000, will be sub 3,000 mid April
Check the 4 criteria:
- the vaccine deployment programme continues successfully
- evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated
- infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS
- our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1375508534557691904
I wonder how much Germany doing well in the first wave has effected all these mistakes with the summer vacations, lockdown light and now this....when yes they did very well, but there was an element of luck that their initial outbreak was young people and fast to get testing up and running, kept numbers well down this time last year.
Good evening, everybody.
I originally read that as 94.000 deaths IN ONE DAY, which is definitely "bad"
The reality is still grim. Jeez
?
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1375523533158236160?s=20
Would be nice to have all UK data for this one...
(NYT Euro Correspondent)
https://twitter.com/MatinaStevis/status/1375412890644135937
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMD2TwRvuoU
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1375509529140457477
Only Colne Valley is an extra gain for Labour v the MRP released at the start of the year. Also, for Hartlepool:
https://twitter.com/focaldataHQ/status/1375424899918004227
So compared with the start of the year they have:
Labour: 39% (-4 pp)
Con: 36% (+9 pp)
RUK: 9% (-8 pp v Brexit Party)
Green: 7% (+2 pp)
LD: 3% (-2 pp)
Other: 6% (-3 pp)
Yes, there maybe local factors that put off backing what seems enormous value Lab EVS, I’m not convinced, but I don’t get how people can think it’s a better than 50% chance the Tories will take it