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.
This opinion poll has made Labour share going up whilst the Tories goes up more cool again. Jezza ahead of his time as always!!
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
Yep. You get it, I think.
If a year from now there's no cut through and the national polls still look bad for Labour, that's the time to think dark thoughts and consider whether Starmer should lead into the GE.
But on May 6th, only 17 months after the Tory Leave landslide, with those months filled only by the pandemic, and with the vaccines bringing us out of it, the Tories winning Brexit Central aka Hartlepool means little other than a betting win for adherents of #newpunditrynewpolitics.
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.
Good intentions? "Oh he's a convicted insider dealer but that's OK". "Our Values Statement?" "Oh we use that to wipe our feet."
Or, even more likely, they didn't bother to find out - but, yeah, they have a brilliant Know Your Customer policy. Such a shame they didn't use it.
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?
To be fair, they don't say by whom....
Nothing will be learned unless it benefits those who need to safeguard their revenue stream. One industry has had to replace a 'broken business model' (i.e. broken for them) by mRNA treatments
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.
Same old same old, isn't it? I thought we had a sobered up, low church, trimmed down City since the Crash. Ah well.
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
One can't deny that looking at the countries with highest vaccination rates - Israel, UAE, UK, Chile, US must be a worst nightmare for a certain kind of leftist.
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.
Do you (or others who are into equities) have a view on Astra Z shares?
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.
Yes. I feel like bloody Cassandra all the time. And I'm not making any money from it. ☹️
I even gave CS a talk about some of the dangers a couple of years back - lots of praise followed. Fuck all follow up work. Bastards!
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.
Same old same old, isn't it? I thought we had a sobered up, low church, trimmed down City since the Crash. Ah well.
You thought that? How sweet. 😀
It's about 10 years since the last set of disasters so this is exactly the time when the next lot will be coming to light. (The 10-year cycle is pretty well-established in finance.) I remember in one of my talks telling the audience that the actions and inactions leading to the next set of problems / scandals etc were happening that very moment and the audience's job was to make sure they weren't happening at their bank. They all nodded .......
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
One can't deny that looking at the countries with highest vaccination rates - Israel, UAE, UK, Chile, US must be a worst nightmare for a certain kind of leftist.
It's almost as if despite lefties wanting the state to run their lives for them, it is right-wingers who know how to get stuff done.
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.
Public transport demand in a city like London is very price inelastic, as it’s often the optimum way to get a person around the city. Most people still in their cars in London, won’t want to switch to the Tube at any price of tube and car transport.
They’re not in the car because it’s faster, they’re in the car becuase either they have stuff to carry, have multiple calls to make all over town during a day, or are sitting in the back working as they’re driven around.
The political situation with regard to Vax ID cards is deadly, unpredictable and public opinion will swing with the facts. It has the potential to destroy Boris and his government.
Doing nothing is not an option.
There are no simple somethings.
There are no uncontroversial somethings.
There are no somethings which don't discriminate against someone.
Doing nothing also discriminates against someone.
It's a free hit for every other party.
His own party is split. If he were not PM he would be leading the split.
Travel/hospitality/commerce wants government to tell it what to do, in such a way that it agrees with government, even though they will disagree with each other.
The government will want to maximally devolve discretion to commerce etc, which is the opposite.
The present policy is to stick fingers in the air, find out/guess what may do least political harm and say nothing whatsoever definite.
A lot of loyal SNP people will vote Alba - and why not? An SNP list vote is a wasted vote for so many punters up here. Vote Alba for that super majority...
One can't deny that looking at the countries with highest vaccination rates - Israel, UAE, UK, Chile, US must be a worst nightmare for a certain kind of leftist.
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%?
Yes, it is the "all doses" number. Given the high Israeli youth population, their target for full vaccination is something like 80% of population, twice.
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%?
They’re using the Pfizer vaccine, two doses each on residents over 16.
Residents under 16 are around 20%, so the target for completion is 160% of population.
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
One can't deny that looking at the countries with highest vaccination rates - Israel, UAE, UK, Chile, US must be a worst nightmare for a certain kind of leftist.
It's almost as if despite lefties wanting the state to run their lives for them, it is right-wingers who know how to get stuff done.
The correct balance is of course a mix of the two. Yes Royal Mail should be publicly owned as should all the strategic national assets. They need to remain owned by the state to ensure their continued existence and their delivery of services required by the state.
But not publicly run. We have got Department for Transport morons trying to micromanage the rail network and they haven't a clue how anything works in reality. So we should do as the Germans and French and Dutch and Italians ans Norwegians do - StateCo. Owned by the state, run commercially. Able to access funding at governmental near-zero interest rates but tasked with not being a huge black hole they have to be run like an actual business.
Labour have nothing to say.. where are the policies to help them win???They don't even have a charismatic leader.
SKS fans please respond.
No Labour leader since WW2 has lost their 1st by election where they were incumbent.
Until now?
It isn't an either/or - the response to Keith being shit isn't to go back to status quo ante as we know Jezbollah was shitter.
Labour needs to decide what it stands for and who it speaks to. The problem over the last few decades on areas like Teesside is it stood for and spoke to its own magnificence. Everything may be shit round here but that was all Thatcha, so don't blame us for doing Fuck All since then.
SKS fans please explain who Labour stands for.
And how come if Jezza was shittier he never lost Hartlepool?
The irony here is that I, a traitor who fucked off to join the Tories LibDems want Paul Williams and Labour to win, and you the proper socialist want Labour to lose.
You don't see the problem?
This is the age old problem. Best to lose to right wing Johnsonian Conservatives than risk compromising Corbynist purity.
Boris Johnson is smirking and laughing at the Labour purists like Len, Laura and BJO doing his bidding for him.
Bloody hell, the USA has really caught up I think.
They will finish well in front of us - though their absolute level of vaccination take-up won't be as high.
I've already seen stories about substantial weakening of demand in some of the redder states (e.g. Alabama) at mid 30 percent vaccinated. I'm not an epidemiologist, but it all seems a bit suboptimal.
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.
You give them a right of response.
Purdah - I believe - is about government spending announcements not press conferences
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.
Public transport demand in a city like London is very price inelastic, as it’s often the optimum way to get a person around the city. Most people still in their cars in London, won’t want to switch to the Tube at any price of tube and car transport.
They’re not in the car because it’s faster, they’re in the car becuase either they have stuff to carry, have multiple calls to make all over town during a day, or are sitting in the back working as they’re driven around.
London reconnections have an article as to why Uber was such a problem for London. One of the biggest issues was the additional cars resulted in screwing up bus services due to additional traffic delaying everything.
I'm pretty sure that I can hear a crowd, in the distance, but the only foottball match in the city today is not scheduled to start until 7pm as far as I can make out, and I didn't think crowds were allowed yet. What a weird, and yet oddly normal sound.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
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.
Public transport demand in a city like London is very price inelastic, as it’s often the optimum way to get a person around the city. Most people still in their cars in London, won’t want to switch to the Tube at any price of tube and car transport.
They’re not in the car because it’s faster, they’re in the car becuase either they have stuff to carry, have multiple calls to make all over town during a day, or are sitting in the back working as they’re driven around.
London reconnections have an article as to why Uber was such a problem for London. One of the biggest issues was the additional cars resulted in screwing up bus services due to additional traffic delaying everything.
Yup. It’s a huge problem in New York too, whey they strictly limit yellow cab licences to avoid the streets being overrun with taxis. These new ‘ride sharing’ cars added a lot of traffic to the city, and mostly drive around empty.
Cases rising in Japan With just over 100 days to go to the Tokyo Olympics, Japanese health authorities are concerned that variants of the coronavirus are driving a nascent fourth wave.
The variants appear to be more infectious and may be resistant to vaccines, which are still not widely available in Japan. Osaka is the worst-affected city. Infections there hit fresh records last week, prompting the regional government to start targeted lockdown measures for one month from Monday.
A mutant Covid variant first discovered in Britain has taken hold in the Osaka region, spreading faster and filling up hospital beds with more serious cases than the original virus, according to Koji Wada, a government adviser on the pandemic.
“The fourth wave is going to be larger,” said Wada, a professor at Tokyo’s International University of Health and Welfare. “We need to start to discuss how we could utilise these targeted measures for the Tokyo area”:
Excellent as always from Matthew Goodwin, and as we stand today, correct; but he fails to capture what politics would be like as and when Boris's wheels come off. There is a perfectly plausible scene in which however humdrum SKS is, by not being Boris, not being Tory, and by and having no affirmative policies he becomes the only possible PM.
At least five routes are already visible: VaxID; unemployment; public finances; a Brexit fail; inflation.
WRT to vaccine passports/cettificates it does appear to me that the actual debate we are having is an encouraging sign of progress against thevirus itself. We are, as I see it, in a strange time where we can see the end of the pandemic (at least here) but we are not there yet. It is like a shoreline on the other side of a narrow but fast flowing river - some want to cautiously build a bridge, others want to just jump in and swim over ASAP despite what appear to be some risks. If you step back and think about it it is a good place to be.
If introduced really don't think they will last. The history of pandemics is that people want to forget about them. I am not sure Johnson will want to be leading a country into the next election that has to be reminded of the hellish 18-24 months we will have gone through between March 2020 and (hopefully) sometime between September 2021 and March 2022 everytime it goes out..
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
We had to take my son to hospital after he had the MMR jab in December. He went limp and unresponsive - it turned out to be a thing called a Hypertonic Hyporesponsive Episode, but it probably took a couple of years off my life!
I will probably take the jab but don’t mind admitting I am pretty worried about the lack of knowledge about any long term side effects
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
WRT to vaccine passports/cettificates it does appear to me that the actual debate we are having is an encouraging sign of progress against thevirus itself. We are, as I see it, in a strange time where we can see the end of the pandemic (at least here) but we are not there yet. It is like a shoreline on the other side of a narrow but fast flowing river - some want to cautiously build a bridge, others want to just jump in and swim over ASAP despite what appear to be some risks. If you step back and think about it it is a good place to be.
If introduced really don't think they will last. The history of pandemics is that people want to forget about them. I am not sure Johnson will want to be leading a country into the next election that has to be reminded of the hellish 18-24 months we will have gone through between March 2020 and (hopefully) sometime between September 2021 and March 2022 everytime it goes out..
Agreed. I can’t see how people can be outraged about either response, they both seem reasonable
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
Yes. Which other ones are the govt telling us we have to have?
Excellent as always from Matthew Goodwin, and as we stand today, correct; but he fails to capture what politics would be like as and when Boris's wheels come off. There is a perfectly plausible scene in which however humdrum SKS is, by not being Boris, not being Tory, and by and having no affirmative policies he becomes the only possible PM.
At least five routes are already visible: VaxID; unemployment; public finances; a Brexit fail; inflation.
A few months ago the analysis was Johnson would be resigning soon. Now it's Starmer who is supposedly going to resign, terrible ratings, Labour in a hole, etc. A few months ago that was the same for the Tories.
That's how quick the game changes, I don't think anyone really knows to be honest, however fun it is to speculate.
I do however think the idea it's going to be plain sailing to 2024 is nuts, what period in recent history has been plain sailing???
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
We had to take my son to hospital after he had the MMR jab in December. He went limp and unresponsive - it turned out to be a thing called a Hypertonic Hyporesponsive Episode, but it probably took a couple of years off my life!
I will probably take the jab but don’t mind admitting I am pretty worried about the lack of knowledge about any long term side effects
But you have to set that against the KNOWN long term horrors of a Covid infection (and there may be more unknown horrors on the way, from neural damage to infertility)
Taking any medication is a risk. Especially a new medication. Deadly plagues are far, far riskier
Male? Check. Oldish? Check. Of a roseate hue? Check. No one knows who he is? Check.
It's brilliant the technology now so that people can look at the screen, perhaps at a tweet, and how twitter can now embed a mirror in that tweet as an image.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
My mother-in-law had a nasty reaction to Pfizer - she has a history of anaphalactic shock so why her doctor gave her the go ahead for it I have no idea - but she's getting J&J as a follow up on Saturday.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
Yes. Which other ones are the govt telling us we have to have?
For children the MMR, for adults an annual flu jab..
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
We had to take my son to hospital after he had the MMR jab in December. He went limp and unresponsive - it turned out to be a thing called a Hypertonic Hyporesponsive Episode, but it probably took a couple of years off my life!
I will probably take the jab but don’t mind admitting I am pretty worried about the lack of knowledge about any long term side effects
Yes - the jab has undoubtedly contributed to lives saved. I have had my first one and am looking forward to the next. But despite the rigorous testing and trials programmes, this is a brand spanking new vaccine.
Glad to hear that all was well with your son. Must have been a huge shock while it lasted.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
Yes. Which other ones are the govt telling us we have to have?
For children the MMR, for adults an annual flu jab..
I have never had a flu jab and could, up until the govt closed them, go to the theatre any time I wanted.
Very limited domestic manufacturing capacity, and didn't order early, coupled with the production delays and European export controls. (And, FWIW, they're fairly vaccine sceptic.)
Like all rich nations, though, they will get large amounts of vaccine over the next few months.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
All this airy talk of ‘suspending’ this or that vaccine kinda ignores the fact the world is heading into a deadly fourth wave of a pandemic. Cases and deaths are rising again globally. Millions have died already. Economies are tottering.
The UK’s relative, recent good fortune on vaccines maybe obscures this distressing truth, and gives us a false sense of safety. The virus is far from beaten. Every infection is a possible new mutation - and a 5th wave, or a 6th.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?....
The signs are that they won't. And even if some sort of Gove dreamed up scheme is imposed on us, it will probably include testing confirmation as an alternative.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?....
The signs are that they won't. And even if some sort of Gove dreamed up scheme is imposed on us, it will probably include testing confirmation as an alternative.
Yes. The "vaccine passport" when expanded in news items quickly comes to include testing.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
What are you talking about. The government obliges us to do minimally risky things all the time. Kids have to go to school, but they might get run over on the way. We have to wear seat belts in cars, even though they can cause internal injuries or hinder escape in certain kinds of accidents. &c
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
Yes. Which other ones are the govt telling us we have to have?
For children the MMR, for adults an annual flu jab..
I have never had a flu jab and could, up until the govt closed them, go to the theatre any time I wanted.
No idea about MMR. Is it voluntary?
Yes - you are not legally required to have it and a child is not prevented from attending school if they haven't had it.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
Very limited domestic manufacturing capacity, and didn't order early, coupled with the production delays and European export controls. (And, FWIW, they're fairly vaccine sceptic.)
Like all rich nations, though, they will get large amounts of vaccine over the next few months.
They also have a requirement that, to get approval, vaccines and drugs have to be tested in Japan. Even though (by Japanese standards) they've expedited the process, it has has still introduced delays. So far they've approved only Pfizer, and it's likely to be May before they complete the approval process for the next two (AZ and Moderna).
WRT to vaccine passports/cettificates it does appear to me that the actual debate we are having is an encouraging sign of progress against thevirus itself. We are, as I see it, in a strange time where we can see the end of the pandemic (at least here) but we are not there yet. It is like a shoreline on the other side of a narrow but fast flowing river - some want to cautiously build a bridge, others want to just jump in and swim over ASAP despite what appear to be some risks. If you step back and think about it it is a good place to be.
If introduced really don't think they will last. The history of pandemics is that people want to forget about them. I am not sure Johnson will want to be leading a country into the next election that has to be reminded of the hellish 18-24 months we will have gone through between March 2020 and (hopefully) sometime between September 2021 and March 2022 everytime it goes out..
A solid take. I'm prepared to put my entire (and newly boosted with Hartlepool) superforecaster rep on the line for this one and state that there will be no vaccine passports for widespread domestic use in this country. Maybe one or two exceptions but certainly not for "normal" things like public transport, hospitality and retail. It will essentially be for international travel only.
Further thought. It is in the government's partisan political interest to keep reminding the public that other countries are way behind us on vaccines and hence that the pandemic may be over here but it continues to rage elsewhere. It would be easy (but imo wrong) to read into such talk that they plan to welsh on the roadmap for overseas holidays. They might, given the political angle, but on balance I think they'll stick to 17 May (with a traffic light system).
All this airy talk of ‘suspending’ this or that vaccine kinda ignores the fact the world is heading into a deadly fourth wave of a pandemic. Cases and deaths are rising again globally. Millions have died already. Economies are tottering.
The UK’s relative, recent good fortune on vaccines maybe obscures this distressing truth, and gives us a false sense of safety. The virus is far from beaten. Every infection is a possible new mutation - and a 5th wave, or a 6th.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
What are you talking about. The government obliges us to do minimally risky things all the time. Kids have to go to school, but they might get run over on the way. We have to wear seat belts in cars, even though they can cause internal injuries or hinder escape in certain kinds of accidents. &c
Kids can be home schooled and, if people believe that seat belts are too risky, they can not travel in cars. Such people can, however, still go to the National should they so wish.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
We had to take my son to hospital after he had the MMR jab in December. He went limp and unresponsive - it turned out to be a thing called a Hypertonic Hyporesponsive Episode, but it probably took a couple of years off my life!
I will probably take the jab but don’t mind admitting I am pretty worried about the lack of knowledge about any long term side effects
Vaccine side effects, if any, show up almost straight away. With millions of people vaccinated, we've almost certainly seen what we're going to see in terms of consequences.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
Conscription?
Yes absolutely. That is a good point. Conscription in time of war.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
What are you talking about. The government obliges us to do minimally risky things all the time. Kids have to go to school, but they might get run over on the way. We have to wear seat belts in cars, even though they can cause internal injuries or hinder escape in certain kinds of accidents. &c
Kids can be home schooled and, if people believe that seat belts are too risky, they can not travel in cars. Such people can, however, still go to the National should they so wish.
No one is being forced to have the vaccine either, just nudged very hard if they want to have any kind of normal life. Ditto schools, seat belts.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
Yes. Which other ones are the govt telling us we have to have?
For children the MMR, for adults an annual flu jab..
I have never had a flu jab and could, up until the govt closed them, go to the theatre any time I wanted.
No idea about MMR. Is it voluntary?
Yes - you are not legally required to have it and a child is not prevented from attending school if they haven't had it.
Ditto with flu.
my point is none of them are ones you have to have on pain of going to court / prison. Even your covid jab is a personal choice.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
As I noted above (and as they nodded to in the paper published yesterday), they've addressed that. The real concern lies rather in the possible imposition of a largely unnecessary piece of bureaucratic oversight on our everyday lives.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
What are you talking about. The government obliges us to do minimally risky things all the time. Kids have to go to school, but they might get run over on the way. We have to wear seat belts in cars, even though they can cause internal injuries or hinder escape in certain kinds of accidents. &c
Kids can be home schooled and, if people believe that seat belts are too risky, they can not travel in cars. Such people can, however, still go to the National should they so wish.
No one is being forced to have the vaccine either, just nudged very hard if they want to have any kind of normal life. Ditto schools, seat belts.
THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT!
Ahem.
That is my whole point.
It is an interesting exercise to ponder that "if they want to have any kind of normal life" people are going to be forced to take a small but non-zero risk. In particular it seems younger women.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
Conscription?
Oh but/and/however - what about being a conscientious objector? I am torturing this, I appreciate...
Obviously this guy is one of those funny looking FBPE types but it should be pointed out that London has far and away more airport traffic than any city in the world. 6 international airports will do that.
WRT to vaccine passports/cettificates it does appear to me that the actual debate we are having is an encouraging sign of progress against thevirus itself. We are, as I see it, in a strange time where we can see the end of the pandemic (at least here) but we are not there yet. It is like a shoreline on the other side of a narrow but fast flowing river - some want to cautiously build a bridge, others want to just jump in and swim over ASAP despite what appear to be some risks. If you step back and think about it it is a good place to be.
If introduced really don't think they will last. The history of pandemics is that people want to forget about them. I am not sure Johnson will want to be leading a country into the next election that has to be reminded of the hellish 18-24 months we will have gone through between March 2020 and (hopefully) sometime between September 2021 and March 2022 everytime it goes out..
A solid take. I'm prepared to put my entire (and newly boosted with Hartlepool) superforecaster rep on the line for this one and state that there will be no vaccine passports for widespread domestic use in this country. Maybe one or two exceptions but certainly not for "normal" things like public transport, hospitality and retail. It will essentially be for international travel only.
Further thought. It is in the government's partisan political interest to keep reminding the public that other countries are way behind us on vaccines and hence that the pandemic may be over here but it continues to rage elsewhere. It would be easy (but imo wrong) to read into such talk that they plan to welsh on the roadmap for overseas holidays. They might, given the political angle, but on balance I think they'll stick to 17 May (with a traffic light system).
The simplest thing to do would be to go with the traffic light system, but put almost everywhere on the red list.
When the President of the French Republic insists the situation in France is so awful they need to be in lockdown, then how can it be the case they're not on a red list yet?
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
As I noted above (and as they nodded to in the paper published yesterday), they've addressed that. The real concern lies rather in the possible imposition of a largely unnecessary piece of bureaucratic oversight on our everyday lives.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
No, that's completely wrong. No-one is mandating anything. What they are saying is (possibly, if the scheme goes ahead) that proof of vaccination will allow you to do things which you couldn't otherwise do. And that means that no-one is being denied anything, quite the opposite, in fact. The alternative without the certificate scheme in place would be that both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated would be denied entry, because the venue would have to be closed as it currently is.
So an entirely free choice to get vaccinated, and to get and show the certificate, with absolutely zero denial of any right which you'd have if the whole scheme didn't exist, but with additional options for those who do take part.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
What are you talking about. The government obliges us to do minimally risky things all the time. Kids have to go to school, but they might get run over on the way. We have to wear seat belts in cars, even though they can cause internal injuries or hinder escape in certain kinds of accidents. &c
Kids can be home schooled and, if people believe that seat belts are too risky, they can not travel in cars. Such people can, however, still go to the National should they so wish.
No one is being forced to have the vaccine either, just nudged very hard if they want to have any kind of normal life. Ditto schools, seat belts.
THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT!
Ahem.
That is my whole point.
It is an interesting exercise to ponder that "if they want to have any kind of normal life" people are going to be forced to take a small but non-zero risk. In particular it seems younger women.
As if a normal life is something you have to earn by obedience to the state's commands. In what way is this, in essence, any different from China's social credit system?
The blackout was compulsory for everyone in WW2, civilians and soldiers alike. There were thousands of accidents and deaths caused by that mandatory darkness. eg 1,100 traffic deaths in the first month alone
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
Conscription?
Oh but/and/however - what about being a conscientious objector? I am torturing this, I appreciate...
Conscientious objectors are more of a bug rather than a feature of conscription, so the fact that there isn't an equivalent loophole for vaccines doesn't really help you.
Needless to say, the risk of death/serious illness from vaccines are typically much lower than the risk of death/serious injury from active military duty at a time of war, which gives you a fair amount of wiggle room when applying the precedent.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
What are you talking about. The government obliges us to do minimally risky things all the time. Kids have to go to school, but they might get run over on the way. We have to wear seat belts in cars, even though they can cause internal injuries or hinder escape in certain kinds of accidents. &c
Kids can be home schooled and, if people believe that seat belts are too risky, they can not travel in cars. Such people can, however, still go to the National should they so wish.
No one is being forced to have the vaccine either, just nudged very hard if they want to have any kind of normal life. Ditto schools, seat belts.
THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT!
Ahem.
That is my whole point.
It is an interesting exercise to ponder that "if they want to have any kind of normal life" people are going to be forced to take a small but non-zero risk. In particular it seems younger women.
Then why are you making such a trivial point?
GOVERNMENT ASKS PEOPLE TO TAKE TINY RISK DURING GLOBAL PLAGUE BUT IT’S NOT COMPULSORY
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
No, that's completely wrong. No-one is mandating anything. What they are saying is (possibly, if the scheme goes ahead) that proof of vaccination will allow you to do things which you couldn't otherwise do. And that means that no-one is being denied anything, quite the opposite, in fact. The alternative without the certificate scheme in place would be that both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated would be denied entry, because the venue would have to be closed as it currently is.
So an entirely free choice to get vaccinated, and to get and show the certificate, with absolutely zero denial of any right which you'd have if the whole scheme didn't exist, but with additional options for those who do take part.
Except you're putting the status quo alternative as that venues remain closed.
That's not the case in either policy or law. The status quo alternative, if no more votes in Parliament occur, is that closures are due to expire and then venues are due to be able to open to everyone. The policy position is that closures and restrictions expire 21/6.
You're acting with this exactly like you did with Theresa May's absurd continuous extensions of Article 50 - acting as if continuously extending the deadline is the viable status quo and nothing should change from that.
The closures are temporary and have a sunset clause in the law. No further action and venues are free to open to everyone automatically, that is the alternative not closure.
Excellent as always from Matthew Goodwin, and as we stand today, correct; but he fails to capture what politics would be like as and when Boris's wheels come off. There is a perfectly plausible scene in which however humdrum SKS is, by not being Boris, not being Tory, and by and having no affirmative policies he becomes the only possible PM.
At least five routes are already visible: VaxID; unemployment; public finances; a Brexit fail; inflation.
Absolutely. Johnson has to hold his Leave coalition together through some (likely to be tough) years before the next election, pandemic and vaccines a memory, no Brexit to deliver. All hangover.
I don't underestimate him. He can do it. But it's no slam dunk. Starmer is a very live contender for next PM. It might be possible to back him at almost SEVEN when the market re-forms after digesting Hartlepool and that imo is outstanding value.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
No, that's completely wrong. No-one is mandating anything. What they are saying is (possibly, if the scheme goes ahead) that proof of vaccination will allow you to do things which you couldn't otherwise do. And that means that no-one is being denied anything, quite the opposite, in fact. The alternative without the certificate scheme in place would be that both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated would be denied entry, because the venue would have to be closed as it currently is.
So an entirely free choice to get vaccinated, and to get and show the certificate, with absolutely zero denial of any right which you'd have if the whole scheme didn't exist, but with additional options for those who do take part.
Hmm. I think that is stretching things a bit.
You are taking the base level as no one can do anything and a VP will let you do things, eg go to the pub, sports venues, the theatre, etc. But the baseline will soon be that everything will be open.
But we are heading to a whopping proportion of people having had the vaccine and the whole "no one can do anything as a baseline" is to prevent, lest we forget, the NHS being overwhelmed. If 10 people have been vaccinated and a young, pregnant woman decides not to be vaccinated then who does that affect. Vaccine efficacy is not 100% in any case.
The govt is therefore saying that young, pregnant woman should take the vaccine and the associated risk to live a normal life.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
No, that's completely wrong. No-one is mandating anything. What they are saying is (possibly, if the scheme goes ahead) that proof of vaccination will allow you to do things which you couldn't otherwise do. And that means that no-one is being denied anything, quite the opposite, in fact. The alternative without the certificate scheme in place would be that both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated would be denied entry, because the venue would have to be closed as it currently is.
So an entirely free choice to get vaccinated, and to get and show the certificate, with absolutely zero denial of any right which you'd have if the whole scheme didn't exist, but with additional options for those who do take part.
Except you're putting the status quo alternative as that venues remain closed.
That's not the case in either policy or law. The status quo alternative, if no more votes in Parliament occur, is that closures are due to expire and then venues are due to be able to open to everyone. The policy position is that closures and restrictions expire 21/6.
You're acting with this exactly like you did with Theresa May's absurd continuous extensions of Article 50 - acting as if continuously extending the deadline is the viable status quo and nothing should change from that.
The closures are temporary and have a sunset clause in the law. No further action and venues are free to open to everyone automatically, that is the alternative not closure.
WRT to vaccine passports/cettificates it does appear to me that the actual debate we are having is an encouraging sign of progress against thevirus itself. We are, as I see it, in a strange time where we can see the end of the pandemic (at least here) but we are not there yet. It is like a shoreline on the other side of a narrow but fast flowing river - some want to cautiously build a bridge, others want to just jump in and swim over ASAP despite what appear to be some risks. If you step back and think about it it is a good place to be.
If introduced really don't think they will last. The history of pandemics is that people want to forget about them. I am not sure Johnson will want to be leading a country into the next election that has to be reminded of the hellish 18-24 months we will have gone through between March 2020 and (hopefully) sometime between September 2021 and March 2022 everytime it goes out..
A solid take. I'm prepared to put my entire (and newly boosted with Hartlepool) superforecaster rep on the line for this one and state that there will be no vaccine passports for widespread domestic use in this country. Maybe one or two exceptions but certainly not for "normal" things like public transport, hospitality and retail. It will essentially be for international travel only.
Further thought. It is in the government's partisan political interest to keep reminding the public that other countries are way behind us on vaccines and hence that the pandemic may be over here but it continues to rage elsewhere. It would be easy (but imo wrong) to read into such talk that they plan to welsh on the roadmap for overseas holidays. They might, given the political angle, but on balance I think they'll stick to 17 May (with a traffic light system).
I agree with all of this Kinabalu (apart from the "superforecaster" bit) and I said this yesterday only to be summarily executed by Contrarian for being a Boris lickspittle!
A related anecdote: I.m just back from a stroll round our village and stopped to chat with a villager who is looking forward to his son and family visiting from the States. I reported last week that my ex-neighbor who moved to the Philippines is doing similar though will spend 10 days in Singapore first to avoid Red List quarantine in a UK hotel. So non-UK citizens are enjoying freedom to travel when we are forbidden to leave the country by law; UK citizens are actively being disadvantaged by this government.
I cannot comprehend why this is not creating more uproar. What is your view?
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
What are you talking about. The government obliges us to do minimally risky things all the time. Kids have to go to school, but they might get run over on the way. We have to wear seat belts in cars, even though they can cause internal injuries or hinder escape in certain kinds of accidents. &c
Kids can be home schooled and, if people believe that seat belts are too risky, they can not travel in cars. Such people can, however, still go to the National should they so wish.
No one is being forced to have the vaccine either, just nudged very hard if they want to have any kind of normal life. Ditto schools, seat belts.
THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT!
Ahem.
That is my whole point.
It is an interesting exercise to ponder that "if they want to have any kind of normal life" people are going to be forced to take a small but non-zero risk. In particular it seems younger women.
As if a normal life is something you have to earn by obedience to the state's commands. In what way is this, in essence, any different from China's social credit system?
China's social credit system is primarily for the benefit of the State, not the people around you. The Government doesn't really care about whether I, personally, am vaccinated - but my neighbours care, as do anyone who's likely to be in a supermarket with me, or sat next to me at the theatre.
The EMA’s vaccine man has just said to Italian media that AZ gives you blood clots
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
For me the interesting dynamic is that the AZN vaccine has a small but non-zero risk of illness and death. So how does the government then mandate that in order to be part of "normal" life people should take this risk?
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
All vaccines have a non-zero risk of illness and death.
The risk of dying from Covid, even for the young, is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of a fatal AZ blood clot. Or indeed a Pfizer blood clot. Or a whatever-vaccine blood clot. From the data we have now
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
And to continue the analogy - women who don't take the pill aren't prevented from going to the pub/theatre/FA Cup final.
Why do you think that is?
I am interested, theoretically, in the obligation element. The govt is mandating people to take a known (if miniscule) risk in order to take part in society. Not sure that has precedent.
What are you talking about. The government obliges us to do minimally risky things all the time. Kids have to go to school, but they might get run over on the way. We have to wear seat belts in cars, even though they can cause internal injuries or hinder escape in certain kinds of accidents. &c
Kids can be home schooled and, if people believe that seat belts are too risky, they can not travel in cars. Such people can, however, still go to the National should they so wish.
No one is being forced to have the vaccine either, just nudged very hard if they want to have any kind of normal life. Ditto schools, seat belts.
THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT!
Ahem.
That is my whole point.
It is an interesting exercise to ponder that "if they want to have any kind of normal life" people are going to be forced to take a small but non-zero risk. In particular it seems younger women.
Then why are you making such a trivial point?
GOVERNMENT ASKS PEOPLE TO TAKE TINY RISK DURING GLOBAL PLAGUE BUT IT’S NOT COMPULSORY
I am making the point because every infringement in our liberties should be dissected, discussed, debated to the nth degree.
I know that plenty here on PB welcome every restrictive measure the govt could think of and many others are keeping a close eye on their neighbours for infringement but we (ie you) are in danger of forgetting the type of society we are in and are in danger of becoming.
As long as you are safe you are happy to give up your liberty.
Comments
If a year from now there's no cut through and the national polls still look bad for Labour, that's the time to think dark thoughts and consider whether Starmer should lead into the GE.
But on May 6th, only 17 months after the Tory Leave landslide, with those months filled only by the pandemic, and with the vaccines bringing us out of it, the Tories winning Brexit Central aka Hartlepool means little other than a betting win for adherents of #newpunditrynewpolitics.
Or, even more likely, they didn't bother to find out - but, yeah, they have a brilliant Know Your Customer policy. Such a shame they didn't use it.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leaked-docs-show-uk-government-has-planned-vaccine-passports-all-along
Maybe our governing party should just change its name to the Conservative and Communist Party of Gt Britan (Marxist-Leninist), to make things clearer.
I even gave CS a talk about some of the dangers a couple of years back - lots of praise followed. Fuck all follow up work. Bastards!
It's about 10 years since the last set of disasters so this is exactly the time when the next lot will be coming to light. (The 10-year cycle is pretty well-established in finance.) I remember in one of my talks telling the audience that the actions and inactions leading to the next set of problems / scandals etc were happening that very moment and the audience's job was to make sure they weren't happening at their bank. They all nodded .......
They’re not in the car because it’s faster, they’re in the car becuase either they have stuff to carry, have multiple calls to make all over town during a day, or are sitting in the back working as they’re driven around.
The actual situation:
The political situation with regard to Vax ID cards is deadly, unpredictable and public opinion will swing with the facts. It has the potential to destroy Boris and his government.
Doing nothing is not an option.
There are no simple somethings.
There are no uncontroversial somethings.
There are no somethings which don't discriminate against someone.
Doing nothing also discriminates against someone.
It's a free hit for every other party.
His own party is split. If he were not PM he would be leading the split.
Travel/hospitality/commerce wants government to tell it what to do, in such a way that it agrees with government, even though they will disagree with each other.
The government will want to maximally devolve discretion to commerce etc, which is the opposite.
The present policy is to stick fingers in the air, find out/guess what may do least political harm and say nothing whatsoever definite.
No Alba signs in Alex's garden yet.
So, 160% on this metric.
Residents under 16 are around 20%, so the target for completion is 160% of population.
But not publicly run. We have got Department for Transport morons trying to micromanage the rail network and they haven't a clue how anything works in reality. So we should do as the Germans and French and Dutch and Italians ans Norwegians do - StateCo. Owned by the state, run commercially. Able to access funding at governmental near-zero interest rates but tasked with not being a huge black hole they have to be run like an actual business.
Boris Johnson is smirking and laughing at the Labour purists like Len, Laura and BJO doing his bidding for him.
Awful news!!!!
https://twitter.com/SpinningHugo/status/1379365302245466113?s=20
https://twitter.com/SpinningHugo/status/1379365807814279168?s=20
If the vaccine starts killing people I reckon Sir Keir will start being popular again
Purdah - I believe - is about government spending announcements not press conferences
Is there a parallel anywhere for this. There must be but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
With just over 100 days to go to the Tokyo Olympics, Japanese health authorities are concerned that variants of the coronavirus are driving a nascent fourth wave.
The variants appear to be more infectious and may be resistant to vaccines, which are still not widely available in Japan. Osaka is the worst-affected city. Infections there hit fresh records last week, prompting the regional government to start targeted lockdown measures for one month from Monday.
A mutant Covid variant first discovered in Britain has taken hold in the Osaka region, spreading faster and filling up hospital beds with more serious cases than the original virus, according to Koji Wada, a government adviser on the pandemic.
“The fourth wave is going to be larger,” said Wada, a professor at Tokyo’s International University of Health and Welfare. “We need to start to discuss how we could utilise these targeted measures for the Tokyo area”:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/apr/06/coronavirus-live-news-indian-states-call-for-people-under-45-to-be-eligible-for-vaccine-cases-rising-in-japan?page=with:block-606be2048f08611d06d8d0ab#block-606be2048f08611d06d8d0ab
Indeed: Just in time for the shitshow which the Olympics will be.
Oldish? Check.
Of a roseate hue? Check.
No one knows who he is? Check.
At least five routes are already visible: VaxID; unemployment; public finances; a Brexit fail; inflation.
https://unherd.com/2021/04/why-keir-starmer-is-doomed/
https://twitter.com/uk_domain_names/status/1374668710485626882?s=21
If introduced really don't think they will last. The history of pandemics is that people want to forget about them. I am not sure Johnson will want to be leading a country into the next election that has to be reminded of the hellish 18-24 months we will have gone through between March 2020 and (hopefully) sometime between September 2021 and March 2022 everytime it goes out..
I will probably take the jab but don’t mind admitting I am pretty worried about the lack of knowledge about any long term side effects
Doctors recommend the pill to women, knowing there’s a 1 in 1000 risk of a serious side-effect
That's how quick the game changes, I don't think anyone really knows to be honest, however fun it is to speculate.
I do however think the idea it's going to be plain sailing to 2024 is nuts, what period in recent history has been plain sailing???
Taking any medication is a risk. Especially a new medication. Deadly plagues are far, far riskier
https://twitter.com/mgoldenmsp/status/1379338587108413441?s=21
https://twitter.com/jackson_carlaw/status/1378799588665081860?s=21
Glad to hear that all was well with your son. Must have been a huge shock while it lasted.
No idea about MMR. Is it voluntary?
(And, FWIW, they're fairly vaccine sceptic.)
Like all rich nations, though, they will get large amounts of vaccine over the next few months.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
The UK’s relative, recent good fortune on vaccines maybe obscures this distressing truth, and gives us a false sense of safety. The virus is far from beaten. Every infection is a possible new mutation - and a 5th wave, or a 6th.
Any of the major vaccines is better than none.
And even if some sort of Gove dreamed up scheme is imposed on us, it will probably include testing confirmation as an alternative.
Ditto with flu.
https://www.nippon.com/en/news/yjj2021032100216/
The EU is lightning fast by comparison!
Further thought. It is in the government's partisan political interest to keep reminding the public that other countries are way behind us on vaccines and hence that the pandemic may be over here but it continues to rage elsewhere. It would be easy (but imo wrong) to read into such talk that they plan to welsh on the roadmap for overseas holidays. They might, given the political angle, but on balance I think they'll stick to 17 May (with a traffic light system).
With millions of people vaccinated, we've almost certainly seen what we're going to see in terms of consequences.
Let the parallels begin....!!
The real concern lies rather in the possible imposition of a largely unnecessary piece of bureaucratic oversight on our everyday lives.
Ahem.
That is my whole point.
It is an interesting exercise to ponder that "if they want to have any kind of normal life" people are going to be forced to take a small but non-zero risk. In particular it seems younger women.
When the President of the French Republic insists the situation in France is so awful they need to be in lockdown, then how can it be the case they're not on a red list yet?
So an entirely free choice to get vaccinated, and to get and show the certificate, with absolutely zero denial of any right which you'd have if the whole scheme didn't exist, but with additional options for those who do take part.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/12/blackout-second-world-war-traffic-deaths-1939?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/nov/01/blackout-britain-wartime?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Yet the government enforced it because the risk of death from bombing was deemed greater
Needless to say, the risk of death/serious illness from vaccines are typically much lower than the risk of death/serious injury from active military duty at a time of war, which gives you a fair amount of wiggle room when applying the precedent.
GOVERNMENT ASKS PEOPLE TO TAKE TINY RISK DURING GLOBAL PLAGUE BUT IT’S NOT COMPULSORY
That's not the case in either policy or law. The status quo alternative, if no more votes in Parliament occur, is that closures are due to expire and then venues are due to be able to open to everyone. The policy position is that closures and restrictions expire 21/6.
You're acting with this exactly like you did with Theresa May's absurd continuous extensions of Article 50 - acting as if continuously extending the deadline is the viable status quo and nothing should change from that.
The closures are temporary and have a sunset clause in the law. No further action and venues are free to open to everyone automatically, that is the alternative not closure.
I don't underestimate him. He can do it. But it's no slam dunk. Starmer is a very live contender for next PM. It might be possible to back him at almost SEVEN when the market re-forms after digesting Hartlepool and that imo is outstanding value.
You are taking the base level as no one can do anything and a VP will let you do things, eg go to the pub, sports venues, the theatre, etc. But the baseline will soon be that everything will be open.
But we are heading to a whopping proportion of people having had the vaccine and the whole "no one can do anything as a baseline" is to prevent, lest we forget, the NHS being overwhelmed. If 10 people have been vaccinated and a young, pregnant woman decides not to be vaccinated then who does that affect. Vaccine efficacy is not 100% in any case.
The govt is therefore saying that young, pregnant woman should take the vaccine and the associated risk to live a normal life.
Why?
A related anecdote: I.m just back from a stroll round our village and stopped to chat with a villager who is looking forward to his son and family visiting from the States. I reported last week that my ex-neighbor who moved to the Philippines is doing similar though will spend 10 days in Singapore first to avoid Red List quarantine in a UK hotel. So non-UK citizens are enjoying freedom to travel when we are forbidden to leave the country by law; UK citizens are actively being disadvantaged by this government.
I cannot comprehend why this is not creating more uproar. What is your view?
I know that plenty here on PB welcome every restrictive measure the govt could think of and many others are keeping a close eye on their neighbours for infringement but we (ie you) are in danger of forgetting the type of society we are in and are in danger of becoming.
As long as you are safe you are happy to give up your liberty.
It must have been many thousands by the end of the war
Kinda puts in perspective the <<< checks notes >>> estimated 7 deaths from 18 million vaccinations, so far