We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
There's a very practical difference in that one requires tickets that are checked on the door (so VP can be checked at the same time) whereas pub does aren't secured or ticketed.
Is that like the drunk looking for his lost keys under the lamppost because it's lighter there?
One point, in a cinema at full capacity you're next to, and in front of someone you don't know for two hours. In a pub you can choose where you sit. Also the ticketing practicality is a real world consideration.
What pubs do you go to? I would bet that for every pub that has seating for everyone, there is one wherein it's a bunfight, pushing through crowds of people to queue up at the bar.
Interesting line on Playbook about the BBC mulling over what to do about the PM turning Covid briefings into political campaign rallies. His not entirely factual / outright lie attack on Khan has got their heckles up as how do they maintain impartiality during purdah?
Perfect issue for the Tories. Johnson simply makes up any old lie he likes about Khan or any other opposition candidate. The BBC cuts away. And then attack waves of Tory MPs and the Mail/Express/GBnotNews go piling in about leftie BBC cancel culture.
That it is illegal for the BBC to broadcast shagger's lies won't matter. Watch for more of them in coming days and more of him leading the press conferences.
In this case he was asked by a London journalist about TFL and responded as any politician would
Indeed this has been a continuing theme in Sturgeon's press conferences
Boris and Nicola both upsetting opponents is politics
And who are GB not News
The problem is the law. As we are now in purdah the broadcasters cannot just air one sided views. What Sturgeon did when it wasn't purdah is irrelevant as there is a completely different decision to make when outside of an election.
Morning all. So, Hartlepool eh. Told you all, didn't I? Will I ever get a big call wrong? One day I will - but the wait goes on.
That core reasoning again. This is the capital of WWC Leave and the Cons own that (very strong) political identity right now. They would have won this seat at the GE without the BXP intervention. NIP helps them too. The Cons are big favs and the evens was an absolute steal.
Labour are by no means out of it but a win for them here would be an upset and would be fantastic news for Starmer.
It’s staggering to me that a lot of people seem to think Labour is point scoring in a crisis when others simultaneously think they aren’t doing anything at all. I can’t comprehend that
Because you can take sensible constructive criticism. Hunt has done that e.g. he suggested things like having schools open for key worker kids and restricting visits to old people homes.
Labour response time and time again has been we agree, then complaining about more money needed or nit picking about nonsense. Then 2 weeks later moaning government doing it all wrong.
That wasn’t my point, my point is how so many people can think they’re not doing any opposition whilst others think it’s far too much. People really do have widely different perceptions, it’s actually kind of fascinating
Its almost as if people aren't a homogenous bloc so you can't please everyone all the time.
The problem is that Keir hasn't chosen a bloc. He vacillates between the two, so those who want opposition say he's not doing it, those who don't want nit picking think he is doing it. Because they both see him doing what they don't want.
Judging by his political performance, I have no idea how he chooses which pair of underpants to wear in the morning.
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
In theatres and classical music concerts the audience sits quietly and doesn't vocalise. Probably the biggest risk of transmission is at the half time drinks. In pop concerts, night clubs and football the audience makes lots of noise, so a much greater risk IMO. Pubs and bars are probably between the two, depending on clientele.
Where does a packed tube in which you have many people squashed together in close contact, including those who may be ill but cant afford to take a sick day, come in your list?
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
Come on - they twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. Just because they've said "they won't be needed" doesn't mean they won't be needed. Indeed if they are needed they will insist they have always said they would be needed and anyone quoting them saying the opposite are obviously just attacking our NHS.
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
In theatres and classical music concerts the audience sits quietly and doesn't vocalise. Probably the biggest risk of transmission is at the half time drinks. In pop concerts, night clubs and football the audience makes lots of noise, so a much greater risk IMO. Pubs and bars are probably between the two, depending on clientele.
Where does a packed tube in which you have many people squashed together in close contact, including those who may be ill but cant afford to take a sick day, come in your list?
Failure to legislate for proper sick pay for everyone remains by a mile the worst failing of the government's covid response. Was the stat that only 35% of employed people have been able to work from home? It's also a pro-young policy so sensible politics for a party that relies too heavily on the grey vote.
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
There's a very practical difference in that one requires tickets that are checked on the door (so VP can be checked at the same time) whereas pub does aren't secured or ticketed.
Is that like the drunk looking for his lost keys under the lamppost because it's lighter there?
One point, in a cinema at full capacity you're next to, and in front of someone you don't know for two hours. In a pub you can choose where you sit. Also the ticketing practicality is a real world consideration.
What pubs do you go to? I would bet that for every pub that has seating for everyone, there is one wherein it's a bunfight, pushing through crowds of people to queue up at the bar.
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
There's a very practical difference in that one requires tickets that are checked on the door (so VP can be checked at the same time) whereas pub does aren't secured or ticketed.
Is that like the drunk looking for his lost keys under the lamppost because it's lighter there?
One point, in a cinema at full capacity you're next to, and in front of someone you don't know for two hours. In a pub you can choose where you sit. Also the ticketing practicality is a real world consideration.
What pubs do you go to? I would bet that for every pub that has seating for everyone, there is one wherein it's a bunfight, pushing through crowds of people to queue up at the bar.
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
For now. Then later in the year they will once the scheme is actually working is what he means.
I just don't believe a word Zahawi says on this. Nothing against him, he said he was against it weeks ago and I rather suspect he still is, but Downing Street have told him to hold the line on this while Gove and Hancock do their review.
If they are now saying that nothing that has been reopened will then subsequently need a vaxport then what is the frigging point other than foreign travel? As Freddy Sawyers is arguing this morning in DT, even nightclubs will have been stuffed to breaking with young people for months by the time this app is up and running.
I'm sorry but that's ridiculous conspiracy theorising.
So they've not said that they will be required, they have said they won't be required - so you take that to mean they will be?
And why? As you yourself said by the time this even becomes an option they'll have been open for months. So why would the government make the incredibly unpopular decision to require them, months after they opened without being required?
Its nonsense on stilts. Not going to happen. Does Boris Johnson really seem the kind of Prime Minister who will take an incredibly unpopular and difficult decision without any reason to do so?
Morning all. So, Hartlepool eh. Told you all, didn't I? Will I ever get a big call wrong? One day I will - but the wait goes on.
That core reasoning again. This is the capital of WWC Leave and the Cons own that (very strong) political identity right now. They would have won this seat at the GE without the BXP intervention. NIP helps them too. The Cons are big favs and the evens was an absolute steal.
Labour are by no means out of it but a win for them here would be an upset and would be fantastic news for Starmer.
A new punditry for a new politics.
IMHO the Labour win comes from the Tory vote somehow collapsing (why would it?) or the Tory vote not coming out to vote.
Labour isn't going to make much progress in their own vote, they have unified the Remain site and the Leave side is with the Tories.
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
Come on - they twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. Just because they've said "they won't be needed" doesn't mean they won't be needed. Indeed if they are needed they will insist they have always said they would be needed and anyone quoting them saying the opposite are obviously just attacking our NHS.
Sage's "Third Wave" is the ultimate send everyone back to jail card. With the threat/possibility of a future event any old thing can be justified.
But as I keep saying, with their current poll lead following every and any of their recent policy measures, why on earth wouldn't the Cons be tempted to keep the population scared and hence under control (and voting Conservative)?
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
There's a very practical difference in that one requires tickets that are checked on the door (so VP can be checked at the same time) whereas pub does aren't secured or ticketed.
Is that like the drunk looking for his lost keys under the lamppost because it's lighter there?
One point, in a cinema at full capacity you're next to, and in front of someone you don't know for two hours. In a pub you can choose where you sit. Also the ticketing practicality is a real world consideration.
No one in government has made this point, but you're implicitly making this about personal safety.
Well, I'm not worried about my own or any other individual's safety. The vaccine is good enough for me. If anyone is worried about catching something, stay at home.
I think vax passports for large events and flights could help takeup amongst under 30s. I've not come to a definite conclusion on cinemas and theatres personally.
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
There's a very practical difference in that one requires tickets that are checked on the door (so VP can be checked at the same time) whereas pub does aren't secured or ticketed.
Is that like the drunk looking for his lost keys under the lamppost because it's lighter there?
One point, in a cinema at full capacity you're next to, and in front of someone you don't know for two hours. In a pub you can choose where you sit. Also the ticketing practicality is a real world consideration.
What pubs do you go to? I would bet that for every pub that has seating for everyone, there is one wherein it's a bunfight, pushing through crowds of people to queue up at the bar.
Morning all. So, Hartlepool eh. Told you all, didn't I? Will I ever get a big call wrong? One day I will - but the wait goes on.
That core reasoning again. This is the capital of WWC Leave and the Cons own that (very strong) political identity right now. They would have won this seat at the GE without the BXP intervention. NIP helps them too. The Cons are big favs and the evens was an absolute steal.
Labour are by no means out of it but a win for them here would be an upset and would be fantastic news for Starmer.
A new punditry for a new politics.
IMHO the Labour win comes from the Tory vote somehow collapsing (why would it?) or the Tory vote not coming out to vote.
Labour isn't going to make much progress in their own vote, they have unified the Remain site and the Leave side is with the Tories.
Flip that - what is the incentive for the Labour vote to come out? I think May will see a big defection from Labour --> Can't Be Arsed Party.
But, you retort, surely they will rally to Skyr's fleg? His rhetoric, his rallying cry, his...
I love (well, hate) the need to frame everything as 'One side says this, but another side says this'. "Critics say" that costs will be huge? No. It's a fact that costs will be huge. That doesn't mean this is a bad idea necessarily, but some things aren't a matter of opinion and acting like everything is not useful journalism.
'Boris Johnson says we must kill every firstborn child, but critics say it will lead to huge deaths.'
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
In theatres and classical music concerts the audience sits quietly and doesn't vocalise. Probably the biggest risk of transmission is at the half time drinks. In pop concerts, night clubs and football the audience makes lots of noise, so a much greater risk IMO. Pubs and bars are probably between the two, depending on clientele.
Where does a packed tube in which you have many people squashed together in close contact, including those who may be ill but cant afford to take a sick day, come in your list?
Failure to legislate for proper sick pay for everyone remains by a mile the worst failing of the government's covid response. Was the stat that only 35% of employed people have been able to work from home? It's also a pro-young policy so sensible politics for a party that relies too heavily on the grey vote.
Who on earth is against proper sick pay? Good employers, the majority already offer it, but a significant minority of bad employers exploit their sick workers. Is there really a big section of the electorate who want that to continue?
It’s staggering to me that a lot of people seem to think Labour is point scoring in a crisis when others simultaneously think they aren’t doing anything at all. I can’t comprehend that
Because you can take sensible constructive criticism. Hunt has done that e.g. he suggested things like having schools open for key worker kids and restricting visits to old people homes.
Labour response time and time again has been we agree, then complaining about more money needed or nit picking about nonsense. Then 2 weeks later moaning government doing it all wrong.
That wasn’t my point, my point is how so many people can think they’re not doing any opposition whilst others think it’s far too much. People really do have widely different perceptions, it’s actually kind of fascinating
Its almost as if people aren't a homogenous bloc so you can't please everyone all the time.
The problem is that Keir hasn't chosen a bloc. He vacillates between the two, so those who want opposition say he's not doing it, those who don't want nit picking think he is doing it. Because they both see him doing what they don't want.
Judging by his political performance, I have no idea how he chooses which pair of underpants to wear in the morning.
At least he has chosen not to wear them on his head.
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
In theatres and classical music concerts the audience sits quietly and doesn't vocalise. Probably the biggest risk of transmission is at the half time drinks. In pop concerts, night clubs and football the audience makes lots of noise, so a much greater risk IMO. Pubs and bars are probably between the two, depending on clientele.
Where does a packed tube in which you have many people squashed together in close contact, including those who may be ill but cant afford to take a sick day, come in your list?
How do you check a vaccine certificate when the gates are automatic to allow the throughput of travellers required
It’s staggering to me that a lot of people seem to think Labour is point scoring in a crisis when others simultaneously think they aren’t doing anything at all. I can’t comprehend that
Because you can take sensible constructive criticism. Hunt has done that e.g. he suggested things like having schools open for key worker kids and restricting visits to old people homes.
Labour response time and time again has been we agree, then complaining about more money needed or nit picking about nonsense. Then 2 weeks later moaning government doing it all wrong.
That wasn’t my point, my point is how so many people can think they’re not doing any opposition whilst others think it’s far too much. People really do have widely different perceptions, it’s actually kind of fascinating
Its almost as if people aren't a homogenous bloc so you can't please everyone all the time.
The problem is that Keir hasn't chosen a bloc. He vacillates between the two, so those who want opposition say he's not doing it, those who don't want nit picking think he is doing it. Because they both see him doing what they don't want.
Judging by his political performance, I have no idea how he chooses which pair of underpants to wear in the morning.
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
Come on - they twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. Just because they've said "they won't be needed" doesn't mean they won't be needed. Indeed if they are needed they will insist they have always said they would be needed and anyone quoting them saying the opposite are obviously just attacking our NHS.
They are keeping all options open for the future because you can't guarantee what the future holds, but the decision has already been made to reopen pubs and restaurants without them.
If they are "needed" in the future then that's an issue to be debated then, but I don't think that's going to happen. But some here are claiming they'll be required despite being not needed - that's ludicrous.
Pubs and restaurants are reopening soon without them and that's confirmed already. Why for no good reason whatsoever would they suddenly be required months down the line?
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
There's a very practical difference in that one requires tickets that are checked on the door (so VP can be checked at the same time) whereas pub does aren't secured or ticketed.
Is that like the drunk looking for his lost keys under the lamppost because it's lighter there?
One point, in a cinema at full capacity you're next to, and in front of someone you don't know for two hours. In a pub you can choose where you sit. Also the ticketing practicality is a real world consideration.
What pubs do you go to? I would bet that for every pub that has seating for everyone, there is one wherein it's a bunfight, pushing through crowds of people to queue up at the bar.
Morning all. So, Hartlepool eh. Told you all, didn't I? Will I ever get a big call wrong? One day I will - but the wait goes on.
That core reasoning again. This is the capital of WWC Leave and the Cons own that (very strong) political identity right now. They would have won this seat at the GE without the BXP intervention. NIP helps them too. The Cons are big favs and the evens was an absolute steal.
Labour are by no means out of it but a win for them here would be an upset and would be fantastic news for Starmer.
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
Come on - they twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. Just because they've said "they won't be needed" doesn't mean they won't be needed. Indeed if they are needed they will insist they have always said they would be needed and anyone quoting them saying the opposite are obviously just attacking our NHS.
They are keeping all options open for the future because you can't guarantee what the future holds, but the decision has already been made to reopen pubs and restaurants without them.
If they are "needed" in the future then that's an issue to be debated then, but I don't think that's going to happen. But some here are claiming they'll be required despite being not needed - that's ludicrous.
Pubs and restaurants are reopening soon without them and that's confirmed already. Why for no good reason whatsoever would they suddenly be required months down the line?
Why are vaccine passports / certificates being asked for full stop?
They seem to me to be a solution for a problem that doesn't exist from a soundbite that people ran with as it filled some airtime / column inches up.
I love (well, hate) the need to frame everything as 'One side says this, but another side says this'. "Critics say" that costs will be huge? No. It's a fact that costs will be huge. That doesn't mean this is a bad idea necessarily, but some things aren't a matter of opinion and acting like everything is not useful journalism.
'Boris Johnson says we must kill every firstborn child, but critics say it will lead to huge deaths.'
"Free" tube is the maddest idea since Mad McMad. You're losing out on a tonne of tourist revenue for one.
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
In theatres and classical music concerts the audience sits quietly and doesn't vocalise. Probably the biggest risk of transmission is at the half time drinks. In pop concerts, night clubs and football the audience makes lots of noise, so a much greater risk IMO. Pubs and bars are probably between the two, depending on clientele.
Where does a packed tube in which you have many people squashed together in close contact, including those who may be ill but cant afford to take a sick day, come in your list?
How do you check a vaccine certificate when the gates are automatic to allow the throughput of travellers required
"IF" it was truly essential to public health then you would link it to your oyster or debit card on entry.
But it is not essential to public health, so it wont happen. Logically this implies it is also not essential in less risky environments like sports stadia or bars either. If they are introduced elsewhere it is at best to influence vaccine take up, most likely to bring in permanent ID tracking.
I love (well, hate) the need to frame everything as 'One side says this, but another side says this'. "Critics say" that costs will be huge? No. It's a fact that costs will be huge. That doesn't mean this is a bad idea necessarily, but some things aren't a matter of opinion and acting like everything is not useful journalism.
'Boris Johnson says we must kill every firstborn child, but critics say it will lead to huge deaths.'
"Free" tube is the maddest idea since Mad McMad. You're losing out on a tonne of tourist revenue for one.
I agree, Fox is only suggesting it because he knows he won't win and have to balance the books. Completely unworkable.
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
In theatres and classical music concerts the audience sits quietly and doesn't vocalise. Probably the biggest risk of transmission is at the half time drinks. In pop concerts, night clubs and football the audience makes lots of noise, so a much greater risk IMO. Pubs and bars are probably between the two, depending on clientele.
Where does a packed tube in which you have many people squashed together in close contact, including those who may be ill but cant afford to take a sick day, come in your list?
Failure to legislate for proper sick pay for everyone remains by a mile the worst failing of the government's covid response. Was the stat that only 35% of employed people have been able to work from home? It's also a pro-young policy so sensible politics for a party that relies too heavily on the grey vote.
Who on earth is against proper sick pay? Good employers, the majority already offer it, but a significant minority of bad employers exploit their sick workers. Is there really a big section of the electorate who want that to continue?
I don't think that's fair whatsoever.
For small businesses especially being required to pay full pay to sick pay to someone for six months in this country, while also paying their replacement too, is exhorbitantly expensive.
People compare the weekly cost of sick pay in the UK versus other countries, without acknowledging that sick pay in this country is much more generous for those off for the long-term [sometimes with no intention of coming back] while other countries have more pay but for a shorter-term only.
Its not about "good employers" and "bad employers". Its easier for some companies to be a "good employer" than others.
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
Come on - they twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. Just because they've said "they won't be needed" doesn't mean they won't be needed. Indeed if they are needed they will insist they have always said they would be needed and anyone quoting them saying the opposite are obviously just attacking our NHS.
They are keeping all options open for the future because you can't guarantee what the future holds, but the decision has already been made to reopen pubs and restaurants without them.
If they are "needed" in the future then that's an issue to be debated then, but I don't think that's going to happen. But some here are claiming they'll be required despite being not needed - that's ludicrous.
Pubs and restaurants are reopening soon without them and that's confirmed already. Why for no good reason whatsoever would they suddenly be required months down the line?
The same reason as last time - another wave of pox.
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
Come on - they twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. Just because they've said "they won't be needed" doesn't mean they won't be needed. Indeed if they are needed they will insist they have always said they would be needed and anyone quoting them saying the opposite are obviously just attacking our NHS.
They are keeping all options open for the future because you can't guarantee what the future holds, but the decision has already been made to reopen pubs and restaurants without them.
If they are "needed" in the future then that's an issue to be debated then, but I don't think that's going to happen. But some here are claiming they'll be required despite being not needed - that's ludicrous.
Pubs and restaurants are reopening soon without them and that's confirmed already. Why for no good reason whatsoever would they suddenly be required months down the line?
Why are vaccine passports / certificates being asked for full stop?
They seem to me to be a solution for a problem that doesn't exist from a soundbite that people ran with as it filled some airtime / column inches up.
Israel has the most successful vaccine program in the world. They also have vaxports
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
Come on - they twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. Just because they've said "they won't be needed" doesn't mean they won't be needed. Indeed if they are needed they will insist they have always said they would be needed and anyone quoting them saying the opposite are obviously just attacking our NHS.
They are keeping all options open for the future because you can't guarantee what the future holds, but the decision has already been made to reopen pubs and restaurants without them.
If they are "needed" in the future then that's an issue to be debated then, but I don't think that's going to happen. But some here are claiming they'll be required despite being not needed - that's ludicrous.
Pubs and restaurants are reopening soon without them and that's confirmed already. Why for no good reason whatsoever would they suddenly be required months down the line?
The same reason as last time - another wave of pox.
Not likely to happen. But if it does, then that doesn't meet the "for no reason" hysteria on here.
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
For now. Then later in the year they will once the scheme is actually working is what he means.
I just don't believe a word Zahawi says on this. Nothing against him, he said he was against it weeks ago and I rather suspect he still is, but Downing Street have told him to hold the line on this while Gove and Hancock do their review.
If they are now saying that nothing that has been reopened will then subsequently need a vaxport then what is the frigging point other than foreign travel? As Freddy Sawyers is arguing this morning in DT, even nightclubs will have been stuffed to breaking with young people for months by the time this app is up and running.
Completely pointless, other than for foreign travel, I agree.
Due to having fessed up to suffering from excessive boredom during Lockdown, PB's resident flint-knapper @Leon was commissioned by CCHQ to knap the perfect sculpture of Boris Johnson! Finally able to take a break from knapping strangely shaped sex-toys, he accepted the work in a heatbeat, and got to sculpting the same day. Arduous work, but he felt that, over the course of several weeks of almost continuous knapping, that he got it almost completely spot on with just a little bit more required.
However, @Leon had found that he had knapped so meticulously that his hands were thoroughly knackered and sore. He wondered about taking some time off in order to finish off his masterpiece at a later date. Boris's office phoned him back reasonably promptly, but to @Leon's horror, he was told in no uncertain terms that he would lose his fee if he stopped work!
It’s staggering to me that a lot of people seem to think Labour is point scoring in a crisis when others simultaneously think they aren’t doing anything at all. I can’t comprehend that
Because you can take sensible constructive criticism. Hunt has done that e.g. he suggested things like having schools open for key worker kids and restricting visits to old people homes.
Labour response time and time again has been we agree, then complaining about more money needed or nit picking about nonsense. Then 2 weeks later moaning government doing it all wrong.
That wasn’t my point, my point is how so many people can think they’re not doing any opposition whilst others think it’s far too much. People really do have widely different perceptions, it’s actually kind of fascinating
The "not doing any opposition" theme is contrived by Starmer's internal opponents who want rid of him come what may, and will find any excuse to criticise him for the sake of it.
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
Come on - they twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. Just because they've said "they won't be needed" doesn't mean they won't be needed. Indeed if they are needed they will insist they have always said they would be needed and anyone quoting them saying the opposite are obviously just attacking our NHS.
They are keeping all options open for the future because you can't guarantee what the future holds, but the decision has already been made to reopen pubs and restaurants without them.
If they are "needed" in the future then that's an issue to be debated then, but I don't think that's going to happen. But some here are claiming they'll be required despite being not needed - that's ludicrous.
Pubs and restaurants are reopening soon without them and that's confirmed already. Why for no good reason whatsoever would they suddenly be required months down the line?
Why are vaccine passports / certificates being asked for full stop?
They seem to me to be a solution for a problem that doesn't exist from a soundbite that people ran with as it filled some airtime / column inches up.
Because other countries and airlines have already confirmed they will be required for travel.
So in order to open up travel, a scheme needs to be asked for. So far the only thing that has been confirmed AFAIK that this will be for is travel.
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
In theatres and classical music concerts the audience sits quietly and doesn't vocalise. Probably the biggest risk of transmission is at the half time drinks. In pop concerts, night clubs and football the audience makes lots of noise, so a much greater risk IMO. Pubs and bars are probably between the two, depending on clientele.
Where does a packed tube in which you have many people squashed together in close contact, including those who may be ill but cant afford to take a sick day, come in your list?
Failure to legislate for proper sick pay for everyone remains by a mile the worst failing of the government's covid response. Was the stat that only 35% of employed people have been able to work from home? It's also a pro-young policy so sensible politics for a party that relies too heavily on the grey vote.
Who on earth is against proper sick pay? Good employers, the majority already offer it, but a significant minority of bad employers exploit their sick workers. Is there really a big section of the electorate who want that to continue?
I don't think that's fair whatsoever.
For small businesses especially being required to pay full pay to sick pay to someone for six months in this country, while also paying their replacement too, is exhorbitantly expensive.
People compare the weekly cost of sick pay in the UK versus other countries, without acknowledging that sick pay in this country is much more generous for those off for the long-term [sometimes with no intention of coming back] while other countries have more pay but for a shorter-term only.
Its not about "good employers" and "bad employers". Its easier for some companies to be a "good employer" than others.
This is really simple.
Those off for six months should be supported by the benefits system not employers.
Those off for your typical 5-10 days a year should absolutely be supported by employers on full pay, instead of being incentivised into coming to work with contagious diseases.
I love (well, hate) the need to frame everything as 'One side says this, but another side says this'. "Critics say" that costs will be huge? No. It's a fact that costs will be huge. That doesn't mean this is a bad idea necessarily, but some things aren't a matter of opinion and acting like everything is not useful journalism.
'Boris Johnson says we must kill every firstborn child, but critics say it will lead to huge deaths.'
"Free" tube is the maddest idea since Mad McMad. You're losing out on a tonne of tourist revenue for one.
I agree, Fox is only suggesting it because he knows he won't win and have to balance the books. Completely unworkable.
It certainly seems the Magic Money Tree crosses any Covid divide.
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
Come on - they twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. Just because they've said "they won't be needed" doesn't mean they won't be needed. Indeed if they are needed they will insist they have always said they would be needed and anyone quoting them saying the opposite are obviously just attacking our NHS.
They are keeping all options open for the future because you can't guarantee what the future holds, but the decision has already been made to reopen pubs and restaurants without them.
If they are "needed" in the future then that's an issue to be debated then, but I don't think that's going to happen. But some here are claiming they'll be required despite being not needed - that's ludicrous.
Pubs and restaurants are reopening soon without them and that's confirmed already. Why for no good reason whatsoever would they suddenly be required months down the line?
Why are vaccine passports / certificates being asked for full stop?
They seem to me to be a solution for a problem that doesn't exist from a soundbite that people ran with as it filled some airtime / column inches up.
Because other countries and airlines have already confirmed they will be required for travel.
So in order to open up travel, a scheme needs to be asked for. So far the only thing that has been confirmed AFAIK that this will be for is travel.
IATA are working on an international scheme for foreign travel. This is the only programme that everyone should be using.
The main issue is that Starmer is dull, and a complete void of ideas. It’s certainly not because he’s too left wing (or even too right wing). He’s been so indecisive, that even the The Times were recently mocking him for this very thing.
No one is expecting him to produce a detailed, in depth manifesto setting out a vision. But he should be able to signal what his worldview is. He can’t capitalise off of the fact Boris is a chameleon if because he comes off as someone searching for what to believe.
Due to having fessed up to suffering from excessive boredom during Lockdown, PB's resident flint-knapper @Leon was commissioned by CCHQ to knap the perfect sculpture of Boris Johnson! Finally able to take a break from knapping strangely shaped sex-toys, he accepted the work in a heatbeat, and got to sculpting the same day. Arduous work, but he felt that, over the course of several weeks of almost continuous knapping, that he got it almost completely spot on with just a little bit more required.
However, @Leon had found that he had knapped so meticulously that his hands were thoroughly knackered and sore. He wondered about taking some time off in order to finish off his masterpiece at a later date. Boris's office phoned him back reasonably promptly, but to @Leon's horror, he was told in no uncertain terms that he would lose his fee if he stopped work!
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
In theatres and classical music concerts the audience sits quietly and doesn't vocalise. Probably the biggest risk of transmission is at the half time drinks. In pop concerts, night clubs and football the audience makes lots of noise, so a much greater risk IMO. Pubs and bars are probably between the two, depending on clientele.
Where does a packed tube in which you have many people squashed together in close contact, including those who may be ill but cant afford to take a sick day, come in your list?
Failure to legislate for proper sick pay for everyone remains by a mile the worst failing of the government's covid response. Was the stat that only 35% of employed people have been able to work from home? It's also a pro-young policy so sensible politics for a party that relies too heavily on the grey vote.
The problem is we have sick pay in this country for six months. Would you seriously expect every small business in this country to pay full pay to people who are sick for six months?
Perhaps there's a good argument for increasing the amount of sick pay - but that should correspond with reducing the entitlement to time off for that to balance it, like is done in other nations.
Paying a fortnight at full pay would cover flus and viruses far better and be much cheaper for employers than paying six months of SSP - but the people who are off long-term sick get far more from six months of income.
So how do you balance it? I don't have a good answer. For a small business with only a handful of employees adding another employees salary for six months is a massive cost.
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
Come on - they twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. Just because they've said "they won't be needed" doesn't mean they won't be needed. Indeed if they are needed they will insist they have always said they would be needed and anyone quoting them saying the opposite are obviously just attacking our NHS.
They are keeping all options open for the future because you can't guarantee what the future holds, but the decision has already been made to reopen pubs and restaurants without them.
If they are "needed" in the future then that's an issue to be debated then, but I don't think that's going to happen. But some here are claiming they'll be required despite being not needed - that's ludicrous.
Pubs and restaurants are reopening soon without them and that's confirmed already. Why for no good reason whatsoever would they suddenly be required months down the line?
Why are vaccine passports / certificates being asked for full stop?
They seem to me to be a solution for a problem that doesn't exist from a soundbite that people ran with as it filled some airtime / column inches up.
Because other countries and airlines have already confirmed they will be required for travel.
So in order to open up travel, a scheme needs to be asked for. So far the only thing that has been confirmed AFAIK that this will be for is travel.
But travel is entirely different - no one wants to spend 2 weeks in quarantine as they arrive somewhere followed by two weeks more as they return home.
My question is why are they being required for events in the UK - I've seen lots of talk about it with zero actual justification beyond because we want to.
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
In theatres and classical music concerts the audience sits quietly and doesn't vocalise. Probably the biggest risk of transmission is at the half time drinks. In pop concerts, night clubs and football the audience makes lots of noise, so a much greater risk IMO. Pubs and bars are probably between the two, depending on clientele.
Where does a packed tube in which you have many people squashed together in close contact, including those who may be ill but cant afford to take a sick day, come in your list?
Failure to legislate for proper sick pay for everyone remains by a mile the worst failing of the government's covid response. Was the stat that only 35% of employed people have been able to work from home? It's also a pro-young policy so sensible politics for a party that relies too heavily on the grey vote.
Who on earth is against proper sick pay? Good employers, the majority already offer it, but a significant minority of bad employers exploit their sick workers. Is there really a big section of the electorate who want that to continue?
I don't think that's fair whatsoever.
For small businesses especially being required to pay full pay to sick pay to someone for six months in this country, while also paying their replacement too, is exhorbitantly expensive.
People compare the weekly cost of sick pay in the UK versus other countries, without acknowledging that sick pay in this country is much more generous for those off for the long-term [sometimes with no intention of coming back] while other countries have more pay but for a shorter-term only.
Its not about "good employers" and "bad employers". Its easier for some companies to be a "good employer" than others.
This is really simple.
Those off for six months should be supported by the benefits system not employers.
Those off for your typical 5-10 days a year should absolutely be supported by employers on full pay, instead of being incentivised into coming to work with contagious diseases.
That's a better system as far as I'm concerned.
Would be better for employers not just employees. Employers have to work within the obligations we have, not what we should have.
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
Come on - they twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. Just because they've said "they won't be needed" doesn't mean they won't be needed. Indeed if they are needed they will insist they have always said they would be needed and anyone quoting them saying the opposite are obviously just attacking our NHS.
They are keeping all options open for the future because you can't guarantee what the future holds, but the decision has already been made to reopen pubs and restaurants without them.
If they are "needed" in the future then that's an issue to be debated then, but I don't think that's going to happen. But some here are claiming they'll be required despite being not needed - that's ludicrous.
Pubs and restaurants are reopening soon without them and that's confirmed already. Why for no good reason whatsoever would they suddenly be required months down the line?
Why are vaccine passports / certificates being asked for full stop?
They seem to me to be a solution for a problem that doesn't exist from a soundbite that people ran with as it filled some airtime / column inches up.
Because other countries and airlines have already confirmed they will be required for travel.
So in order to open up travel, a scheme needs to be asked for. So far the only thing that has been confirmed AFAIK that this will be for is travel.
But travel is entirely different - no one wants to spend 2 weeks in quarantine as they arrive somewhere followed by two weeks more as they return home.
My question is why are they being required for events in the UK - I've seen lots of talk about it with zero actual justification beyond because we want to.
They're not required.
Its being investigated to see eg if 70,000 at Wembley etc would require it to be safe, but its not currently required and not confirmed to be required. People are speculating, nothing is confirmed yet.
We need some of our viral epidemiologists on here to tell us the difference in transmission risks between pubs and theatres. Because VPs won't, it seems, be considered for the former, while the latter are often mentioned as being candidates for their use.
There's a very practical difference in that one requires tickets that are checked on the door (so VP can be checked at the same time) whereas pub does aren't secured or ticketed.
Is that like the drunk looking for his lost keys under the lamppost because it's lighter there?
One point, in a cinema at full capacity you're next to, and in front of someone you don't know for two hours. In a pub you can choose where you sit. Also the ticketing practicality is a real world consideration.
What pubs do you go to? I would bet that for every pub that has seating for everyone, there is one wherein it's a bunfight, pushing through crowds of people to queue up at the bar.
It's nonsense anyway, you can go to the cinema in a cluster of people, just like you can go to the pub - the risks are higher in a pub for obvious reasons.
Theatres are more tricky because of the interval. Crushed bars in the foyers where you have a rugby scrum to get 2 gin and tonic and bag of nuts aren't good. One idea would be for only every other row to be 'let out ' with the alternate rows being brought their food and drink. Bigger theatres could probably do more to open other spaces. Or performances could just be shortened with no interval.
I agree with one of Scott P's Tweeters that the Government are toning down their rhetoric on vaccine passports and will go for a mushy compromise - I got a sense of this yesterday from Boris's statements and now from Zahawi too. This could always have been the aim, but they just wanted to scare the horses so everyone would gratefully agree to the less Orwellian version.
This is promising news for our ability to counter any awkward variants which might crop up.
Driving potent neutralization of a SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern with a heterotypic boost https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.03.438330v1 The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern (VOCs) with mutations in key neutralizing antibody epitopes threatens to undermine vaccines developed against the pandemic founder variant (Wu-Hu-1). Widespread vaccine rollout and continued transmission are creating a population that has antibody responses of varying potency to Wu-Hu-1. Against this background, it is critical to assess the outcomes of subsequent booster vaccination with variant antigens. It is not yet known whether such heterotypic vaccine boosts would be compromised by original antigenic sin, where pre-existing responses to a prior variant dampen responses to a new one, or whether the primed memory B cell repertoire would bridge the gap between Wu-Hu-1 and VOCs. Here, we show that a single adjuvanted dose of receptor binding domain (RBD) protein from VOC 501Y.V2 (B.1.351) drives an extremely potent neutralizing antibody response capable of cross-neutralizing both Wu-Hu-1 and 501Y.V2 in rhesus macaques previously immunized with Wu-Hu-1 spike protein....
The guy at the Scripps Institute who said last spring that he thought the coronavirus would be fairly easy to design vaccines for seems to have been pretty consistently correct.
Labour are creating a policy that doesn't exist so they can oppose it. It's become very obvious that Labour are going to vote in favour or abstain.
Specifically mentioning shops is the tell, once the actual proposal comes through and it doesn't have shops and pubs they can say it was Labour opposition that forced the government to exclude them and now they're happy with the bill, even though it will include shit loads of tracking and monitoring of the population. Labour councils are the ones who want this data, Labour supporting NHS bods are the ones who want to badger people about drinking too much, Labour MPs have always been in favour of ID cards and operating on a basis of gifting people their freedoms.
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
Come on - they twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. Just because they've said "they won't be needed" doesn't mean they won't be needed. Indeed if they are needed they will insist they have always said they would be needed and anyone quoting them saying the opposite are obviously just attacking our NHS.
They are keeping all options open for the future because you can't guarantee what the future holds, but the decision has already been made to reopen pubs and restaurants without them.
If they are "needed" in the future then that's an issue to be debated then, but I don't think that's going to happen. But some here are claiming they'll be required despite being not needed - that's ludicrous.
Pubs and restaurants are reopening soon without them and that's confirmed already. Why for no good reason whatsoever would they suddenly be required months down the line?
The same reason as last time - another wave of pox.
Not likely to happen. But if it does, then that doesn't meet the "for no reason" hysteria on here.
1 It wasn't going to happen last time. And yet Eat out to Help Out not only did nothing beyond the immediate term for the hospitality industry, it managed to drive the spike which took off through September and into the Autumn. 2 People are sensitive to the general incompetence hypocrisy and stupidity of the government. They're already signalling that they will want passports for some places and not others. Won't be a huge leap if we suddenly need them everywhere to prevent the third wave in making all the younger people sick.
Due to having fessed up to suffering from excessive boredom during Lockdown, PB's resident flint-knapper @Leon was commissioned by CCHQ to knap the perfect sculpture of Boris Johnson! Finally able to take a break from knapping strangely shaped sex-toys, he accepted the work in a heatbeat, and got to sculpting the same day. Arduous work, but he felt that, over the course of several weeks of almost continuous knapping, that he got it almost completely spot on with just a little bit more required.
However, @Leon had found that he had knapped so meticulously that his hands were thoroughly knackered and sore. He wondered about taking some time off in order to finish off his masterpiece at a later date. Boris's office phoned him back reasonably promptly, but to @Leon's horror, he was told in no uncertain terms that he would lose his fee if he stopped work!
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
Come on - they twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. Just because they've said "they won't be needed" doesn't mean they won't be needed. Indeed if they are needed they will insist they have always said they would be needed and anyone quoting them saying the opposite are obviously just attacking our NHS.
They are keeping all options open for the future because you can't guarantee what the future holds, but the decision has already been made to reopen pubs and restaurants without them.
If they are "needed" in the future then that's an issue to be debated then, but I don't think that's going to happen. But some here are claiming they'll be required despite being not needed - that's ludicrous.
Pubs and restaurants are reopening soon without them and that's confirmed already. Why for no good reason whatsoever would they suddenly be required months down the line?
Why are vaccine passports / certificates being asked for full stop?
They seem to me to be a solution for a problem that doesn't exist from a soundbite that people ran with as it filled some airtime / column inches up.
Because other countries and airlines have already confirmed they will be required for travel.
So in order to open up travel, a scheme needs to be asked for. So far the only thing that has been confirmed AFAIK that this will be for is travel.
But travel is entirely different - no one wants to spend 2 weeks in quarantine as they arrive somewhere followed by two weeks more as they return home.
My question is why are they being required for events in the UK - I've seen lots of talk about it with zero actual justification beyond because we want to.
There are events planned this summer which if people had a brain would have been cancelled again. The Olympics is an insane idea when so much of the world is still being torn a new one by Covid. And the Euro Football tournament? Again, its a crazy idea if they intend to let supporters from all over Europe congregate together.
Sorry but we're nowhere near the end of this. We're doing better than most of Europe with faster vaccination and we seem determined to undo all the good work in exchange for a few headlines. Which is why Philip we're talking about the vaccine passports you insist the government don't want and won't do. They will do them as the price for being able to unlock as promised despite clearly not being safe to do so.
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
Come on - they twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. Just because they've said "they won't be needed" doesn't mean they won't be needed. Indeed if they are needed they will insist they have always said they would be needed and anyone quoting them saying the opposite are obviously just attacking our NHS.
They are keeping all options open for the future because you can't guarantee what the future holds, but the decision has already been made to reopen pubs and restaurants without them.
If they are "needed" in the future then that's an issue to be debated then, but I don't think that's going to happen. But some here are claiming they'll be required despite being not needed - that's ludicrous.
Pubs and restaurants are reopening soon without them and that's confirmed already. Why for no good reason whatsoever would they suddenly be required months down the line?
The same reason as last time - another wave of pox.
Not likely to happen. But if it does, then that doesn't meet the "for no reason" hysteria on here.
1 It wasn't going to happen last time. And yet Eat out to Help Out not only did nothing beyond the immediate term for the hospitality industry, it managed to drive the spike which took off through September and into the Autumn. 2 People are sensitive to the general incompetence hypocrisy and stupidity of the government. They're already signalling that they will want passports for some places and not others. Won't be a huge leap if we suddenly need them everywhere to prevent the third wave in making all the younger people sick.
Then it seems to me the government is doing the logical thing.
It seems to me better to have a scheme not in use but ready to go if needed.
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
Come on - they twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. Just because they've said "they won't be needed" doesn't mean they won't be needed. Indeed if they are needed they will insist they have always said they would be needed and anyone quoting them saying the opposite are obviously just attacking our NHS.
They are keeping all options open for the future because you can't guarantee what the future holds, but the decision has already been made to reopen pubs and restaurants without them.
If they are "needed" in the future then that's an issue to be debated then, but I don't think that's going to happen. But some here are claiming they'll be required despite being not needed - that's ludicrous.
Pubs and restaurants are reopening soon without them and that's confirmed already. Why for no good reason whatsoever would they suddenly be required months down the line?
Why are vaccine passports / certificates being asked for full stop?
They seem to me to be a solution for a problem that doesn't exist from a soundbite that people ran with as it filled some airtime / column inches up.
Because other countries and airlines have already confirmed they will be required for travel.
So in order to open up travel, a scheme needs to be asked for. So far the only thing that has been confirmed AFAIK that this will be for is travel.
But travel is entirely different - no one wants to spend 2 weeks in quarantine as they arrive somewhere followed by two weeks more as they return home.
My question is why are they being required for events in the UK - I've seen lots of talk about it with zero actual justification beyond because we want to.
There are events planned this summer which if people had a brain would have been cancelled again. The Olympics is an insane idea when so much of the world is still being torn a new one by Covid. And the Euro Football tournament? Again, its a crazy idea if they intend to let supporters from all over Europe congregate together.
Sorry but we're nowhere near the end of this. We're doing better than most of Europe with faster vaccination and we seem determined to undo all the good work in exchange for a few headlines. Which is why Philip we're talking about the vaccine passports you insist the government don't want and won't do. They will do them as the price for being able to unlock as promised despite clearly not being safe to do so.
BiB - I'd be amazed if the Euros go ahead as planned with fans in large numbers. UEFA has a decision to make. Do they want fans? Then there's only really one option. If they can't stomach that, then it will be behind closed doors for most of the games.
I love (well, hate) the need to frame everything as 'One side says this, but another side says this'. "Critics say" that costs will be huge? No. It's a fact that costs will be huge. That doesn't mean this is a bad idea necessarily, but some things aren't a matter of opinion and acting like everything is not useful journalism.
'Boris Johnson says we must kill every firstborn child, but critics say it will lead to huge deaths.'
"Free" tube is the maddest idea since Mad McMad. You're losing out on a tonne of tourist revenue for one.
I agree, Fox is only suggesting it because he knows he won't win and have to balance the books. Completely unworkable.
Now, I know a little bit about transport economics, and I wouldn't say the idea is inherently unworkable. But instinctively I would say it only works in a medium-demand environment (like Luxembourg). In London - where the demand for public transport is so high that occupancy is high EVEN THOUGH fares are high, dropping the price to zero won't create the significant shift from road to public transport to provide the benefit to justify the cost.
Morning all. So, Hartlepool eh. Told you all, didn't I? Will I ever get a big call wrong? One day I will - but the wait goes on.
That core reasoning again. This is the capital of WWC Leave and the Cons own that (very strong) political identity right now. They would have won this seat at the GE without the BXP intervention. NIP helps them too. The Cons are big favs and the evens was an absolute steal.
Labour are by no means out of it but a win for them here would be an upset and would be fantastic news for Starmer.
A new punditry for a new politics.
IMHO the Labour win comes from the Tory vote somehow collapsing (why would it?) or the Tory vote not coming out to vote.
Labour isn't going to make much progress in their own vote, they have unified the Remain site and the Leave side is with the Tories.
Yep. We are in with a chance. Here's hoping. But my main point is that this truly is a new politics (post Brexit) and the old ways of analyzing it must be set aside. WWC Leave is a strong identity and the Tories own it. If Labour can somehow win a seat like Hartlepool so soon after the Johnson landslide where he united the Leave vote, and with Brexit looking a great decision because of vaccines, that would be an achievement and terrific news for Starmer.
But let's assume I'm right and it's the expected Con win. You will then hear much nonsense about "disaster for Labour" (it isn't) and "Starmer must go" (he shouldn't and he won't).
My comrades on the Modern Metro Left - eg Owen - will pile in and say it shows Starmer is too insipidly centrist to inspire anybody and Lab should junk him and re-radicalize. Sundry other people of varying political hues with bugbears about him being weak on whatever their pet issue is (liberty, lockdown, leader charisma, vaxports) will say it just proves their point and that Starmer should go.
All this stuff has to be ignored. If the polls have not closed significantly in a year from now, that's a different matter, but there is no good objective (as opposed to agenda'd) reason to panic at this point.
Sounds like Cammo's Greensill has taken Credit Suisse down with it
Don't think that they are in any danger of going down but they have certainly taken a serious hit. Why do you say that? The article I read suggested a loss of £900m in Q1, not great but nothing like enough to bring a bank like that down.
Though others must be taking a hit too from Archegos as well as Greenshill.
Perhaps getting to time to cash out of the equities bubble again?
I meant, as in a peg or two, not as in floored.
Increasingly I think we'll see a correction, at the very east, over the next year, possibly as early as this autumn. There'll be a trigger event of some sort; this one isn't going to be it.
I see that both the Dow and Dax are at all time highs, and that makes me nervous.
On the other hand, QE and MMT spending does push up real asset prices.
I may shift out of financials a bit though. It is a bit too much of my portfolio.
Gold is another possible bolt hole (although your Centamin looks like its struggling recently).
I like index linked bonds (via INXG). People can't see inflation coming, yet.
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
Come on - they twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. Just because they've said "they won't be needed" doesn't mean they won't be needed. Indeed if they are needed they will insist they have always said they would be needed and anyone quoting them saying the opposite are obviously just attacking our NHS.
They are keeping all options open for the future because you can't guarantee what the future holds, but the decision has already been made to reopen pubs and restaurants without them.
If they are "needed" in the future then that's an issue to be debated then, but I don't think that's going to happen. But some here are claiming they'll be required despite being not needed - that's ludicrous.
Pubs and restaurants are reopening soon without them and that's confirmed already. Why for no good reason whatsoever would they suddenly be required months down the line?
Why are vaccine passports / certificates being asked for full stop?
They seem to me to be a solution for a problem that doesn't exist from a soundbite that people ran with as it filled some airtime / column inches up.
Because other countries and airlines have already confirmed they will be required for travel.
So in order to open up travel, a scheme needs to be asked for. So far the only thing that has been confirmed AFAIK that this will be for is travel.
But travel is entirely different - no one wants to spend 2 weeks in quarantine as they arrive somewhere followed by two weeks more as they return home.
My question is why are they being required for events in the UK - I've seen lots of talk about it with zero actual justification beyond because we want to.
There are events planned this summer which if people had a brain would have been cancelled again. The Olympics is an insane idea when so much of the world is still being torn a new one by Covid. And the Euro Football tournament? Again, its a crazy idea if they intend to let supporters from all over Europe congregate together.
Sorry but we're nowhere near the end of this. We're doing better than most of Europe with faster vaccination and we seem determined to undo all the good work in exchange for a few headlines. Which is why Philip we're talking about the vaccine passports you insist the government don't want and won't do. They will do them as the price for being able to unlock as promised despite clearly not being safe to do so.
Life can't be cancelled forever.
Japan are banning foreigners from entering their country for the duration of the Olympics. So as long as they can ensure that the country is safe and the athletes are vaccinated/quarantine, then it seems perfectly safe to hold now.
The Euro Football tournament is bonkers to be travelling all over Europe during a pandemic. They should change it so the entire tournament is played in the UK, have the teams enter and quarantine and then it would be perfectly safe to host.
We need to get back to normal. The country is safe now, next to nobody is dying from this virus in this country.
CS is not going down but it will now and for many months be in a world of pain.
- It has lost its Chief Risk Officer and Head of the Investment Bank. - Others will be going too and yet more will be nervous about decisions taken or not. - There will be internal investigators, internal audit, external investigators and lawyers and accountants and regulators crawling over thousands of internal documents. - The remediation costs will be immense. - Clients whose money was invested in these ventures will need to be pacified if legal action is to be avoided. - It may well face enforcement action from regulators - It will be urgently looking to see where else it has made similar mistakes.
I love the way it is now saying that serious lessons will be learnt
Would it be unkind and/or tactless of me to say that if it had learnt any of the serious lessons that were available to learnt from the many similar disasters over, ooh I don't know, the last decade, they might not have had to learn them now?
I agree with one of Scott P's Tweeters that the Government are toning down their rhetoric on vaccine passports and will go for a mushy compromise - I got a sense of this yesterday from Boris's statements and now from Zahawi too. This could always have been the aim, but they just wanted to scare the horses so everyone would gratefully agree to the less Orwellian version.
The mushy compromise being that venues can insist on your showing the passport before entry - but having to prominently display on doors/websites if they do NOT require showing one, so people can choose not to go to such plague pits.
Interesting theory here, it is very odd the mainstream media are scared to follow up on this , already a police investigation underway as well. You would almost think the unionist media want to keep Sturgeon in place.
Herald journalists with no idea what a story is, start here.
Our tale begins in March 2016, when lottery winners Chris and Colin Weir each issued a loan of £500,000 to the SNP, which logic would suggest was intended to assist with fighting that year’s Holyrood election seven weeks later. https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-great-indyref-swindle/
I'm very sceptical of such polls - I guess it will be close on a low turnout. Probable Labour hold but ..'events dear boy, events'. Who knows?
As I keep pointing out this isn't just a by-election, it is Super Thursday. People are out to vote for their council, the metro Mayor, the PCC and their MP. Turnout will be very healthy.
Nailed on Tory gain. As I have been saying consistently from the moment the by-election was announced. I know the area, I know the politics, I know several of the candidates.
Tories are sweeping the board in this one. It isn't just Brexit, it's the long arrogant death-rattle of Labour in the NE and the absolute roll the Tories have been on there for the last few years.
I'm very sceptical of such polls - I guess it will be close on a low turnout. Probable Labour hold but ..'events dear boy, events'. Who knows?
As I keep pointing out this isn't just a by-election, it is Super Thursday. People are out to vote for their council, the metro Mayor, the PCC and their MP. Turnout will be very healthy.
Nailed on Tory gain. As I have been saying consistently from the moment the by-election was announced. I know the area, I know the politics, I know several of the candidates.
Tories are sweeping the board in this one. It isn't just Brexit, it's the long arrogant death-rattle of Labour in the NE and the absolute roll the Tories have been on there for the last few years.
Local elections - including Mayoral elections - do not drive turnout. A Parliamentary by election normally brings out more voters - so the effect here should be to boost turnout in Hartlepool in the other elections being held on the same day. Re- this poll. It is worth repeating that 200 of the 502 voters contacted did not give a voting preference - ie 40%. It also strikes me as unlikely that the two-party vote will approach 91%.
CS is not going down but it will now and for many months be in a world of pain.
- It has lost its Chief Risk Officer and Head of the Investment Bank. - Others will be going too and yet more will be nervous about decisions taken or not. - There will be internal investigators, internal audit, external investigators and lawyers and accountants and regulators crawling over thousands of internal documents. - The remediation costs will be immense. - Clients whose money was invested in these ventures will need to be pacified if legal action is to be avoided. - It may well face enforcement action from regulators - It will be urgently looking to see where else it has made similar mistakes.
I love the way it is now saying that serious lessons will be learnt
Would it be unkind and/or tactless of me to say that if it had learnt any of the serious lessons that were available to learnt from the many similar disasters over, ooh I don't know, the last decade, they might not have had to learn them now?
It would. Oh well. I've said it.
Surely the whole point of "lessons will be learned" is to avoid actually learning any lessons?
As a side note: Some people last night were suggesting the LDs will focus on Amersham and Chesham. Is there time to hold it on the same day? If it is more than a week or two after I'd have thought the party could put resources into both, even if Hartlepool is hardly a priority target.
As a side note: Some people last night were suggesting the LDs will focus on Amersham and Chesham. Is there time to hold it on the same day? If it is more than a week or two after I'd have thought the party could put resources into both, even if Hartlepool is hardly a priority target.
Left wing ideas are generally more popular than left wing parties. The minimum wage hike vote passed in GOP held Florida for instance.
My view is that people in the uk like left wing ideas but want them implemented cautiously rather enthusiastically. So a right of centre govt dipping its toe into left wing policies is perfect
Labour in charge is a bit like having a supply teacher take over and there’s chaos. The Tories are like the teacher you dislike but respect occasionally lowering their guard.
I guess the more hysterical posters on here won't even realise how stupid some of the posts they have been making will look if the MHRA decides to recommend to not give AZ to young people. More cases are likely to show up of this rare blood clot as more young people are vaccinated in the UK with AZ, so probably going to become more of an issue.
It might be a sensible idea for the UK to swap a few million AZ doses with the EU now for a few million Pfizer doses when the next big delivery happens or something like that. Then European countries can accelerate vaccinating old people straight away, and the UK will be able to offer young people an alternative. win-win-win
Morning all. So, Hartlepool eh. Told you all, didn't I? Will I ever get a big call wrong? One day I will - but the wait goes on.
That core reasoning again. This is the capital of WWC Leave and the Cons own that (very strong) political identity right now. They would have won this seat at the GE without the BXP intervention. NIP helps them too. The Cons are big favs and the evens was an absolute steal.
Labour are by no means out of it but a win for them here would be an upset and would be fantastic news for Starmer.
A new punditry for a new politics.
IMHO the Labour win comes from the Tory vote somehow collapsing (why would it?) or the Tory vote not coming out to vote.
Labour isn't going to make much progress in their own vote, they have unified the Remain site and the Leave side is with the Tories.
Yep. We are in with a chance. Here's hoping. But my main point is that this truly is a new politics (post Brexit) and the old ways of analyzing it must be set aside. WWC Leave is a strong identity and the Tories own it. If Labour can somehow win a seat like Hartlepool so soon after the Johnson landslide where he united the Leave vote, and with Brexit looking a great decision because of vaccines, that would be an achievement and terrific news for Starmer.
But let's assume I'm right and it's the expected Con win. You will then hear much nonsense about "disaster for Labour" (it isn't) and "Starmer must go" (he shouldn't and he won't).
My comrades on the Modern Metro Left - eg Owen - will pile in and say it shows Starmer is too insipidly centrist to inspire anybody and Lab should junk him and re-radicalize. Sundry other people of varying political hues with bugbears about him being weak on whatever their pet issue is (liberty, lockdown, leader charisma, vaxports) will say it just proves their point and that Starmer should go.
All this stuff has to be ignored. If the polls have not closed significantly in a year from now, that's a different matter, but there is no good objective (as opposed to agenda'd) reason to panic at this point.
Labour's vote in Hartlepool is actually up on this poll on what Corbyn got in 2019 by squeezing the LDs.
So a Corbynite would be doing even worse, failing to win over 2019 LDs, while 2019 Brexit Party voters would still be voting Tory and electing a Tory MP
Morning all. So, Hartlepool eh. Told you all, didn't I? Will I ever get a big call wrong? One day I will - but the wait goes on.
That core reasoning again. This is the capital of WWC Leave and the Cons own that (very strong) political identity right now. They would have won this seat at the GE without the BXP intervention. NIP helps them too. The Cons are big favs and the evens was an absolute steal.
Labour are by no means out of it but a win for them here would be an upset and would be fantastic news for Starmer.
A new punditry for a new politics.
When did the by-election take place?
- I did say that Labour are by no means out of it.
Main betting steer, however, is to watch for an overreaction to a Con win. I'll be looking to top up on 'Starmer Next PM' in the immediate aftermath if that drifts a lot. He's going nowhere. Nor is Johnson. When it dawns on punters that the next GE will be Johnson v Starmer, anybody long of Starmer at north of 5 will have an excellent position.
Sounds like Cammo's Greensill has taken Credit Suisse down with it
Don't think that they are in any danger of going down but they have certainly taken a serious hit. Why do you say that? The article I read suggested a loss of £900m in Q1, not great but nothing like enough to bring a bank like that down.
Though others must be taking a hit too from Archegos as well as Greenshill.
Perhaps getting to time to cash out of the equities bubble again?
£4.7 bn loss in Archegos alone, makes Greensill pale in comparison.
Ouch.
No-one with any sense should have been dealing with Archegos, a fund run by a man with a conviction for insider dealing. This was all known about publicly since 2012 and to a fair few others since 2009.
I love (well, hate) the need to frame everything as 'One side says this, but another side says this'. "Critics say" that costs will be huge? No. It's a fact that costs will be huge. That doesn't mean this is a bad idea necessarily, but some things aren't a matter of opinion and acting like everything is not useful journalism.
'Boris Johnson says we must kill every firstborn child, but critics say it will lead to huge deaths.'
"Free" tube is the maddest idea since Mad McMad. You're losing out on a tonne of tourist revenue for one.
I agree, Fox is only suggesting it because he knows he won't win and have to balance the books. Completely unworkable.
Now, I know a little bit about transport economics, and I wouldn't say the idea is inherently unworkable. But instinctively I would say it only works in a medium-demand environment (like Luxembourg). In London - where the demand for public transport is so high that occupancy is high EVEN THOUGH fares are high, dropping the price to zero won't create the significant shift from road to public transport to provide the benefit to justify the cost.
https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/free/ has an overview of it - it wasn't the article I remember reading a month or so ago but it's got a great overview.
One key point Tallinn, Estonia tried this in 2013 - public transport use increased by 14%, but car used dropped only 5%. All it did was stop people walking short distances.
CS is not going down but it will now and for many months be in a world of pain.
- It has lost its Chief Risk Officer and Head of the Investment Bank. - Others will be going too and yet more will be nervous about decisions taken or not. - There will be internal investigators, internal audit, external investigators and lawyers and accountants and regulators crawling over thousands of internal documents. - The remediation costs will be immense. - Clients whose money was invested in these ventures will need to be pacified if legal action is to be avoided. - It may well face enforcement action from regulators - It will be urgently looking to see where else it has made similar mistakes.
I love the way it is now saying that serious lessons will be learnt
Would it be unkind and/or tactless of me to say that if it had learnt any of the serious lessons that were available to learnt from the many similar disasters over, ooh I don't know, the last decade, they might not have had to learn them now?
It would. Oh well. I've said it.
If that had been the case, you might have been on a retainer for the last few years, and they might have saved themselves a few billion.
CS is not going down but it will now and for many months be in a world of pain.
- It has lost its Chief Risk Officer and Head of the Investment Bank. - Others will be going too and yet more will be nervous about decisions taken or not. - There will be internal investigators, internal audit, external investigators and lawyers and accountants and regulators crawling over thousands of internal documents. - The remediation costs will be immense. - Clients whose money was invested in these ventures will need to be pacified if legal action is to be avoided. - It may well face enforcement action from regulators - It will be urgently looking to see where else it has made similar mistakes.
I love the way it is now saying that serious lessons will be learnt
Would it be unkind and/or tactless of me to say that if it had learnt any of the serious lessons that were available to learnt from the many similar disasters over, ooh I don't know, the last decade, they might not have had to learn them now?
It would. Oh well. I've said it.
Surely the whole point of "lessons will be learned" is to avoid actually learning any lessons?
Morning all. So, Hartlepool eh. Told you all, didn't I? Will I ever get a big call wrong? One day I will - but the wait goes on.
That core reasoning again. This is the capital of WWC Leave and the Cons own that (very strong) political identity right now. They would have won this seat at the GE without the BXP intervention. NIP helps them too. The Cons are big favs and the evens was an absolute steal.
Labour are by no means out of it but a win for them here would be an upset and would be fantastic news for Starmer.
A new punditry for a new politics.
I came off the fence in the early hours and backed Labour at 2.5 small stake only. Just think it's a fair price. Turnout is the big thing and I wonder whether WWC Leave will actually bother to vote.
Indeed Boris and Zahawi now have both confirmed they won't be required for pubs and bars - so now Labour talk about shops?
Its insane. Nobody ever suggested that and if they're not required for pubs they're never going to be needed for shops.
Seems a triangulation to invent a strawman they can attack while leaving open the possibility of supporting or abstaining on them in future.
johnson hasn't confirmed they wont be for pubs. he said you wouldnt need one next monday to go to the pub when they reopen.
He went further than that, he said they won't be needed for either Stage 2 or Stage 3. Stage 3 is reopening pubs indoors, not just outside.
Zahawi said the same on Sky this morning, vaccine passports are being considered for travel but pubs and restaurants won't be required certification.
Come on - they twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. Just because they've said "they won't be needed" doesn't mean they won't be needed. Indeed if they are needed they will insist they have always said they would be needed and anyone quoting them saying the opposite are obviously just attacking our NHS.
They are keeping all options open for the future because you can't guarantee what the future holds, but the decision has already been made to reopen pubs and restaurants without them.
If they are "needed" in the future then that's an issue to be debated then, but I don't think that's going to happen. But some here are claiming they'll be required despite being not needed - that's ludicrous.
Pubs and restaurants are reopening soon without them and that's confirmed already. Why for no good reason whatsoever would they suddenly be required months down the line?
Why are vaccine passports / certificates being asked for full stop?
They seem to me to be a solution for a problem that doesn't exist from a soundbite that people ran with as it filled some airtime / column inches up.
Because other countries and airlines have already confirmed they will be required for travel.
So in order to open up travel, a scheme needs to be asked for. So far the only thing that has been confirmed AFAIK that this will be for is travel.
But travel is entirely different - no one wants to spend 2 weeks in quarantine as they arrive somewhere followed by two weeks more as they return home.
My question is why are they being required for events in the UK - I've seen lots of talk about it with zero actual justification beyond because we want to.
There are events planned this summer which if people had a brain would have been cancelled again. The Olympics is an insane idea when so much of the world is still being torn a new one by Covid. And the Euro Football tournament? Again, its a crazy idea if they intend to let supporters from all over Europe congregate together.
Sorry but we're nowhere near the end of this. We're doing better than most of Europe with faster vaccination and we seem determined to undo all the good work in exchange for a few headlines. Which is why Philip we're talking about the vaccine passports you insist the government don't want and won't do. They will do them as the price for being able to unlock as promised despite clearly not being safe to do so.
Life can't be cancelled forever.
Japan are banning foreigners from entering their country for the duration of the Olympics. So as long as they can ensure that the country is safe and the athletes are vaccinated/quarantine, then it seems perfectly safe to hold now.
The Euro Football tournament is bonkers to be travelling all over Europe during a pandemic. They should change it so the entire tournament is played in the UK, have the teams enter and quarantine and then it would be perfectly safe to host.
We need to get back to normal. The country is safe now, next to nobody is dying from this virus in this country.
Safe now providing that we stop people coming in. Which we are not. So we are Not safe now as mutated pox is free to come in as Sneering Priti won't do her job.
The Israel figure of 116 per 100 people is interesting! I assume they are counting 2nd doses so the target isn't 100. As some vaccines require 2 doses and some 1 dose, this is rather confusing as the target is some number between 100 and 200 presumably.
Or is the explanation simpler and nobody has noticed they have a nonsense vaccination rate of 116%?
Morning all. So, Hartlepool eh. Told you all, didn't I? Will I ever get a big call wrong? One day I will - but the wait goes on.
That core reasoning again. This is the capital of WWC Leave and the Cons own that (very strong) political identity right now. They would have won this seat at the GE without the BXP intervention. NIP helps them too. The Cons are big favs and the evens was an absolute steal.
Labour are by no means out of it but a win for them here would be an upset and would be fantastic news for Starmer.
A new punditry for a new politics.
I came off the fence in the early hours and backed Labour at 2.5 small stake only. Just think it's a fair price. Turnout is the big thing and I wonder whether WWC Leave will actually bother to vote.
I suspect they will - as they will want the mayor to bring some of the magic money tree he is using elsewhere in the region to actually be spent in Hartlepool.
Morning all. So, Hartlepool eh. Told you all, didn't I? Will I ever get a big call wrong? One day I will - but the wait goes on.
That core reasoning again. This is the capital of WWC Leave and the Cons own that (very strong) political identity right now. They would have won this seat at the GE without the BXP intervention. NIP helps them too. The Cons are big favs and the evens was an absolute steal.
Labour are by no means out of it but a win for them here would be an upset and would be fantastic news for Starmer.
A new punditry for a new politics.
IMHO the Labour win comes from the Tory vote somehow collapsing (why would it?) or the Tory vote not coming out to vote.
Labour isn't going to make much progress in their own vote, they have unified the Remain site and the Leave side is with the Tories.
Yep. We are in with a chance. Here's hoping. But my main point is that this truly is a new politics (post Brexit) and the old ways of analyzing it must be set aside. WWC Leave is a strong identity and the Tories own it. If Labour can somehow win a seat like Hartlepool so soon after the Johnson landslide where he united the Leave vote, and with Brexit looking a great decision because of vaccines, that would be an achievement and terrific news for Starmer.
But let's assume I'm right and it's the expected Con win. You will then hear much nonsense about "disaster for Labour" (it isn't) and "Starmer must go" (he shouldn't and he won't).
My comrades on the Modern Metro Left - eg Owen - will pile in and say it shows Starmer is too insipidly centrist to inspire anybody and Lab should junk him and re-radicalize. Sundry other people of varying political hues with bugbears about him being weak on whatever their pet issue is (liberty, lockdown, leader charisma, vaxports) will say it just proves their point and that Starmer should go.
All this stuff has to be ignored. If the polls have not closed significantly in a year from now, that's a different matter, but there is no good objective (as opposed to agenda'd) reason to panic at this point.
Labour's vote in Hartlepool is actually up on this poll on what Corbyn got in 2019 by squeezing the LDs.
So a Corbynite would be doing even worse, failing to win over 2019 LDs, while 2019 Brexit Party voters would still be voting Tory and electing a Tory MP
The Pools byelection is yet again to teach adding to BaldrickJohnOwls and his friends:
It doesn't matter if your vote goes up if the vote of the other lot goes up more.
Sounds like Cammo's Greensill has taken Credit Suisse down with it
Don't think that they are in any danger of going down but they have certainly taken a serious hit. Why do you say that? The article I read suggested a loss of £900m in Q1, not great but nothing like enough to bring a bank like that down.
Though others must be taking a hit too from Archegos as well as Greenshill.
Perhaps getting to time to cash out of the equities bubble again?
£4.7 bn loss in Archegos alone, makes Greensill pale in comparison.
Ouch.
No-one with any sense should have been dealing with Archegos, a fund run by a man with a conviction for insider dealing. This was all known about publicly since 2012 and to a fair few others since 2009.
I suspect it started off with good intentions but as everyone else started to make money from him it was hard to continually justify not doing business with him.
Sounds like Cammo's Greensill has taken Credit Suisse down with it
Don't think that they are in any danger of going down but they have certainly taken a serious hit. Why do you say that? The article I read suggested a loss of £900m in Q1, not great but nothing like enough to bring a bank like that down.
Though others must be taking a hit too from Archegos as well as Greenshill.
Perhaps getting to time to cash out of the equities bubble again?
£4.7 bn loss in Archegos alone, makes Greensill pale in comparison.
Ouch.
No-one with any sense should have been dealing with Archegos, a fund run by a man with a conviction for insider dealing. This was all known about publicly since 2012 and to a fair few others since 2009.
I suspect it started off with good intentions but as everyone else started to make money from him it was hard to continually justify not doing business with him.
Making money is not the same as receiving money, unfortunately. CS may have had a big booked profit but now its written off.
I guess the more hysterical posters on here won't even realise how stupid some of the posts they have been making will look if the MHRA decides to recommend to not give AZ to young people. More cases are likely to show up of this rare blood clot as more young people are vaccinated in the UK with AZ, so probably going to become more of an issue.
It might be a sensible idea for the UK to swap a few million AZ doses with the EU now for a few million Pfizer doses when the next big delivery happens or something like that. Then European countries can accelerate vaccinating old people straight away, and the UK will be able to offer young people an alternative. win-win-win
That would be sensible (though I'm not sure that makes it likely).
While the risks for younger people from the AZN vaccine are very low indeed in absolute terms, the reports of the very particular clotting problem seem to be consistent across several countries (and don't seem to be replicated by the Pfizer vaccine), which strongly suggests that it's a real effect.
Note that it's quite possible that the J&J vaccine (and indeed others like Sputnik) will show the same very rare association.
CS is not going down but it will now and for many months be in a world of pain.
- It has lost its Chief Risk Officer and Head of the Investment Bank. - Others will be going too and yet more will be nervous about decisions taken or not. - There will be internal investigators, internal audit, external investigators and lawyers and accountants and regulators crawling over thousands of internal documents. - The remediation costs will be immense. - Clients whose money was invested in these ventures will need to be pacified if legal action is to be avoided. - It may well face enforcement action from regulators - It will be urgently looking to see where else it has made similar mistakes.
I love the way it is now saying that serious lessons will be learnt
Would it be unkind and/or tactless of me to say that if it had learnt any of the serious lessons that were available to learnt from the many similar disasters over, ooh I don't know, the last decade, they might not have had to learn them now?
It would. Oh well. I've said it.
Surely the whole point of "lessons will be learned" is to avoid actually learning any lessons?
The correct definition of "Lessons Learnt" is "lessons which are never learned by those who need to".
The failures re Archegos are stunning. To have such a fund as a client at all, given the owner's public track record, is appalling, frankly. And yet lots of banks did so: not just CS but UBS, GS, Nomura and others.
The only difference is that some of them got out early enough and their losses are more manageable.
But this case and Greensill are just examples of what happened before all the culture change was meant to have happened. Ha!
Comments
http://crownkillamarsh.co.uk/
https://www.facebook.com/thenethergreen/
That core reasoning again. This is the capital of WWC Leave and the Cons own that (very strong) political identity right now. They would have won this seat at the GE without the BXP intervention. NIP helps them too. The Cons are big favs and the evens was an absolute steal.
Labour are by no means out of it but a win for them here would be an upset and would be fantastic news for Starmer.
A new punditry for a new politics.
He is Corbyn?
So they've not said that they will be required, they have said they won't be required - so you take that to mean they will be?
And why? As you yourself said by the time this even becomes an option they'll have been open for months. So why would the government make the incredibly unpopular decision to require them, months after they opened without being required?
Its nonsense on stilts. Not going to happen. Does Boris Johnson really seem the kind of Prime Minister who will take an incredibly unpopular and difficult decision without any reason to do so?
Labour isn't going to make much progress in their own vote, they have unified the Remain site and the Leave side is with the Tories.
But as I keep saying, with their current poll lead following every and any of their recent policy measures, why on earth wouldn't the Cons be tempted to keep the population scared and hence under control (and voting Conservative)?
Pubs = no VP
Theatres = VP
Pubs which have live theatre and music events = ???
But, you retort, surely they will rally to Skyr's fleg? His rhetoric, his rallying cry, his...
Hmmm....
'Boris Johnson says we must kill every firstborn child, but critics say it will lead to huge deaths.'
*sighs*
Yet.
He's a London lawyer.
If they are "needed" in the future then that's an issue to be debated then, but I don't think that's going to happen. But some here are claiming they'll be required despite being not needed - that's ludicrous.
Pubs and restaurants are reopening soon without them and that's confirmed already. Why for no good reason whatsoever would they suddenly be required months down the line?
They seem to me to be a solution for a problem that doesn't exist from a soundbite that people ran with as it filled some airtime / column inches up.
But it is not essential to public health, so it wont happen. Logically this implies it is also not essential in less risky environments like sports stadia or bars either. If they are introduced elsewhere it is at best to influence vaccine take up, most likely to bring in permanent ID tracking.
For small businesses especially being required to pay full pay to sick pay to someone for six months in this country, while also paying their replacement too, is exhorbitantly expensive.
People compare the weekly cost of sick pay in the UK versus other countries, without acknowledging that sick pay in this country is much more generous for those off for the long-term [sometimes with no intention of coming back] while other countries have more pay but for a shorter-term only.
Its not about "good employers" and "bad employers". Its easier for some companies to be a "good employer" than others.
Israel has the most successful vaccine program in the world. They also have vaxports
If you read what they've actually published (yesterday), rather than take seriously any public comments, it's clear that any certification is going to take quite some time, and no decisions on what form it might take have been made yet.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/975919/20210405_Roadmap_Reviews_-_Update_-_standard_size_-_FINAL.pdf
Any 'solution' which emerges after everyone has had the opportunity of a vaccination needs to be minimalist.
However, @Leon had found that he had knapped so meticulously that his hands were thoroughly knackered and sore. He wondered about taking some time off in order to finish off his masterpiece at a later date. Boris's office phoned him back reasonably promptly, but to @Leon's horror, he was told in no uncertain terms that he would lose his fee if he stopped work!
"Why?" asked @Leon on the phone incredulously.
"Simple!" Boris's underling replied. "You're not entitled to any..." He paused for effect. "...Statue-Tory Sick Pay!"
I thank you!
https://twitter.com/franakviacorka/status/1379004576481865734
So in order to open up travel, a scheme needs to be asked for. So far the only thing that has been confirmed AFAIK that this will be for is travel.
Those off for six months should be supported by the benefits system not employers.
Those off for your typical 5-10 days a year should absolutely be supported by employers on full pay, instead of being incentivised into coming to work with contagious diseases.
https://www.iata.org/en/programs/passenger/travel-pass/
No one is expecting him to produce a detailed, in depth manifesto setting out a vision. But he should be able to signal what his worldview is. He can’t capitalise off of the fact Boris is a chameleon if because he comes off as someone searching for what to believe.
You recycle everything, including your jokes.
Indeed, you recycle them until we’re all sick of them, which makes things even greener...
Perhaps there's a good argument for increasing the amount of sick pay - but that should correspond with reducing the entitlement to time off for that to balance it, like is done in other nations.
Paying a fortnight at full pay would cover flus and viruses far better and be much cheaper for employers than paying six months of SSP - but the people who are off long-term sick get far more from six months of income.
So how do you balance it? I don't have a good answer. For a small business with only a handful of employees adding another employees salary for six months is a massive cost.
My question is why are they being required for events in the UK - I've seen lots of talk about it with zero actual justification beyond because we want to.
Would be better for employers not just employees. Employers have to work within the obligations we have, not what we should have.
Its being investigated to see eg if 70,000 at Wembley etc would require it to be safe, but its not currently required and not confirmed to be required. People are speculating, nothing is confirmed yet.
Theatres are more tricky because of the interval. Crushed bars in the foyers where you have a rugby scrum to get 2 gin and tonic and bag of nuts aren't good. One idea would be for only every other row to be 'let out ' with the alternate rows being brought their food and drink. Bigger theatres could probably do more to open other spaces. Or performances could just be shortened with no interval.
Driving potent neutralization of a SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern with a heterotypic boost
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.03.438330v1
The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern (VOCs) with mutations in key neutralizing antibody epitopes threatens to undermine vaccines developed against the pandemic founder variant (Wu-Hu-1). Widespread vaccine rollout and continued transmission are creating a population that has antibody responses of varying potency to Wu-Hu-1. Against this background, it is critical to assess the outcomes of subsequent booster vaccination with variant antigens. It is not yet known whether such heterotypic vaccine boosts would be compromised by original antigenic sin, where pre-existing responses to a prior variant dampen responses to a new one, or whether the primed memory B cell repertoire would bridge the gap between Wu-Hu-1 and VOCs. Here, we show that a single adjuvanted dose of receptor binding domain (RBD) protein from VOC 501Y.V2 (B.1.351) drives an extremely potent neutralizing antibody response capable of cross-neutralizing both Wu-Hu-1 and 501Y.V2 in rhesus macaques previously immunized with Wu-Hu-1 spike protein....
"Original antigenic sin" is a great phrase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin
The guy at the Scripps Institute who said last spring that he thought the coronavirus would be fairly easy to design vaccines for seems to have been pretty consistently correct.
Specifically mentioning shops is the tell, once the actual proposal comes through and it doesn't have shops and pubs they can say it was Labour opposition that forced the government to exclude them and now they're happy with the bill, even though it will include shit loads of tracking and monitoring of the population. Labour councils are the ones who want this data, Labour supporting NHS bods are the ones who want to badger people about drinking too much, Labour MPs have always been in favour of ID cards and operating on a basis of gifting people their freedoms.
2 People are sensitive to the general incompetence hypocrisy and stupidity of the government. They're already signalling that they will want passports for some places and not others. Won't be a huge leap if we suddenly need them everywhere to prevent the third wave in making all the younger people sick.
Sorry but we're nowhere near the end of this. We're doing better than most of Europe with faster vaccination and we seem determined to undo all the good work in exchange for a few headlines. Which is why Philip we're talking about the vaccine passports you insist the government don't want and won't do. They will do them as the price for being able to unlock as promised despite clearly not being safe to do so.
It seems to me better to have a scheme not in use but ready to go if needed.
... than to need it but not have it.
... or to have it and active, but not needed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51657085
Now, I know a little bit about transport economics, and I wouldn't say the idea is inherently unworkable. But instinctively I would say it only works in a medium-demand environment (like Luxembourg). In London - where the demand for public transport is so high that occupancy is high EVEN THOUGH fares are high, dropping the price to zero won't create the significant shift from road to public transport to provide the benefit to justify the cost.
But let's assume I'm right and it's the expected Con win. You will then hear much nonsense about "disaster for Labour" (it isn't) and "Starmer must go" (he shouldn't and he won't).
My comrades on the Modern Metro Left - eg Owen - will pile in and say it shows Starmer is too insipidly centrist to inspire anybody and Lab should junk him and re-radicalize. Sundry other people of varying political hues with bugbears about him being weak on whatever their pet issue is (liberty, lockdown, leader charisma, vaxports) will say it just proves their point and that Starmer should go.
All this stuff has to be ignored. If the polls have not closed significantly in a year from now, that's a different matter, but there is no good objective (as opposed to agenda'd) reason to panic at this point.
I like index linked bonds (via INXG). People can't see inflation coming, yet.
Japan are banning foreigners from entering their country for the duration of the Olympics. So as long as they can ensure that the country is safe and the athletes are vaccinated/quarantine, then it seems perfectly safe to hold now.
The Euro Football tournament is bonkers to be travelling all over Europe during a pandemic. They should change it so the entire tournament is played in the UK, have the teams enter and quarantine and then it would be perfectly safe to host.
We need to get back to normal. The country is safe now, next to nobody is dying from this virus in this country.
CS is not going down but it will now and for many months be in a world of pain.
- It has lost its Chief Risk Officer and Head of the Investment Bank.
- Others will be going too and yet more will be nervous about decisions taken or not.
- There will be internal investigators, internal audit, external investigators and lawyers and accountants and regulators crawling over thousands of internal documents.
- The remediation costs will be immense.
- Clients whose money was invested in these ventures will need to be pacified if legal action is to be avoided.
- It may well face enforcement action from regulators
- It will be urgently looking to see where else it has made similar mistakes.
I love the way it is now saying that serious lessons will be learnt
Would it be unkind and/or tactless of me to say that if it had learnt any of the serious lessons that were available to learnt from the many similar disasters over, ooh I don't know, the last decade, they might not have had to learn them now?
It would. Oh well. I've said it.
Everyone happy.
Herald journalists with no idea what a story is, start here.
Our tale begins in March 2016, when lottery winners Chris and Colin Weir each issued a loan of £500,000 to the SNP, which logic would suggest was intended to assist with fighting that year’s Holyrood election seven weeks later.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-great-indyref-swindle/
Re- this poll. It is worth repeating that 200 of the 502 voters contacted did not give a voting preference - ie 40%. It also strikes me as unlikely that the two-party vote will approach 91%.
Labour in charge is a bit like having a supply teacher take over and there’s chaos. The Tories are like the teacher you dislike but respect occasionally lowering their guard.
And they look like they will stir the left into a frenzy
It might be a sensible idea for the UK to swap a few million AZ doses with the EU now for a few million Pfizer doses when the next big delivery happens or something like that. Then European countries can accelerate vaccinating old people straight away, and the UK will be able to offer young people an alternative. win-win-win
So a Corbynite would be doing even worse, failing to win over 2019 LDs, while 2019 Brexit Party voters would still be voting Tory and electing a Tory MP
Main betting steer, however, is to watch for an overreaction to a Con win. I'll be looking to top up on 'Starmer Next PM' in the immediate aftermath if that drifts a lot. He's going nowhere. Nor is Johnson. When it dawns on punters that the next GE will be Johnson v Starmer, anybody long of Starmer at north of 5 will have an excellent position.
One key point Tallinn, Estonia tried this in 2013 - public transport use increased by 14%, but car used dropped only 5%. All it did was stop people walking short distances.
Or is the explanation simpler and nobody has noticed they have a nonsense vaccination rate of 116%?
It doesn't matter if your vote goes up if the vote of the other lot goes up more.
While the risks for younger people from the AZN vaccine are very low indeed in absolute terms, the reports of the very particular clotting problem seem to be consistent across several countries (and don't seem to be replicated by the Pfizer vaccine), which strongly suggests that it's a real effect.
Note that it's quite possible that the J&J vaccine (and indeed others like Sputnik) will show the same very rare association.
The failures re Archegos are stunning. To have such a fund as a client at all, given the owner's public track record, is appalling, frankly. And yet lots of banks did so: not just CS but UBS, GS, Nomura and others.
The only difference is that some of them got out early enough and their losses are more manageable.
But this case and Greensill are just examples of what happened before all the culture change was meant to have happened. Ha!