Canada only resolved the matter by allowing Quebec's second independence referendum in 1980 a full 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, then even though No only narrowly won with 51% the matter was resolved with devomax for Quebec.
That does put into perspective just how transient the yes vote is.
They're quoting 52% Yes, 48% No [haven't I seen those figures somewhere else?], which I wouldn't have thought was anywhere near enough for the SNP to risk a referendum.
But I think you are right about the transience of the Yes vote (or rather, the Yes opinion-poll figure). It does seem to vary according to very short-term factors which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with independence. It wouldn't be surprising if respondents used it as a proxy to express dissatisfaction with the UK government, or conversely with the SNP government.
Why wouldn't 52% Yes be enough to risk a referendum. Quite frankly 48% from their perspective ought to be enough to risk it.
As the IRA used to say, they need to get lucky once. Not many expected the Brexit referendum to be lost by the Westminster government but it was and we're out now.
If they lose a second referendum that might be the end of the matter (like in Canada), or they can regather and find a new grievance to push and then push for a third - until the Scottish voters decide enough is enough.
Even more reason to refuse a legal indyref2, as Boris will do, as even if Unionists narrowly win it the SNP will push for a third referendum shortly after.
Canada only resolved the matter by allowing Quebec's second independence referendum in 1980 a full 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, then even though No only narrowly won with 51% the matter was resolved with devomax for Quebec
You do know Canada didn't "allow" the second independence referendum, it was held at a time the Quebecois chose for it to be held. So why do you continue to lie about this?
Do you not care for having integrity?
It was still the Canadian government's decision, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that Quebec independence would have been illegal without the approval of the Federal government of Canada.
Spain's government since of course has refused to allow the Catalan nationalist majority government even 1 legal independence referendum, as Tories we should follow the example of our sister party the Popular Party when they were in government and say a firm No to the Nationalists. 2014 was a once in a generation vote
Seems improbable to me that almost a full third of SNP constituency voters would vote for someone else on the list, indeed, that 15% is all of Grn and Alba support, so some of the SNP's constituency vote is going Unionist on the list? I don't think so.
I think that you are putting too much assumption about SNP voters being committed Indie voters. There will be a non-zero number of people who vote SNP in the Constituency and Labour on the List (a die hard anti-Tory in Perthshire for example); or who vote Lib Dem on the List, but vote for the local (SNP) MSP for personal reasons (they helped their aunt with an issue, or whatever)
I have to say if AZ is restricted for under 50s then it may actually speed up the overall programme as the new Moderna deliveries would have to be reserved for under 50s and that can be done with a 4 week gap.
Sharing a sense of despair and powerlessness this morning with Maffew, Leon, alex, Mortimer, Black Rock and others (you know who you are) ... "we few, we happy few, we band of brothers" ... maybe, just maybe a small resistance movement is beginning to stir. My sense of despair comes from a frustration that the government knows something I don't.
As a rule of thumb, never believe what a politician says, watch what they do. Despite the overwhelming evidence in the public domain that COVID is now a miniscule risk, they are constantly moving the goalposts - why is that? What sane person would want this nightmare to continue a moment longer than absolutely necessary?
There are 3 possibilities:
1. The vaccine is not nearly as effective as we are led to believe. The plummeting infections, hospitalizations and death rates are actually a result of the lockdown. Therefore, different ongoing restrictions need to be dreamt up for the foreseeable ... 2. The vaccine is extremely effective but the government has terrified the population to such an extent that zero-covid is the de-facto end state. Therefore, different ongoing restrictions need to be dreamt up for the foreseeable ... 3. The vaccine is extremely effective and the government sees it as a means to introduce an ID card by the back door (to control movement, behaviour, access to services, etc). Therefore, different ongoing restrictions need to be dreamt up for the foreseeable ...
It it's #1, we're screwed. If it's #3, we're screwed (if you enjoy freedom and the British way of life).
I'm clinging to the hope that it's #2 because in that case there is a chance, however slim, that our tiny minority of resistance fighters will grow to the point the government will get the message that enough is enough - we've beaten this thing down to the level of seasonal flu; let's live with it. Change the messaging. Get back to normal (not "more normal" or "something approaching normal" ... just "normal").
My view is we should lift all restrictions now - immediately. I very reluctantly accept that we will have to wait until June 21st for that (but my Tory vote is lost forever - these people are not conservatives). I fear that after June 21st there will still be restrictions in place.
Covid is not, yet, a minuscule risk. Absolutely not. Smaller, shrinking, but not minuscule.
Sorry but it is, deaths are below average now. We have negative excess deaths.
There is no excuse not to be at Stage 3 already, July 2020 restrictions. The vulnerable have been vaccinated, deaths are below average, R has collapsed and we are past the point of share of people vaccinated that Israel was at when they lifted restrictions.
I'm as frustrated as anyone, but the logic that right now, with current restrictions, we have negative excess deaths means that we can get rid of all restrictions right now doesn't hold up. Last August, we had negative excess deaths. The unlocking we did was cautious and limited and still saw an increase. Should we drop all restrictions right now, we won't be at negative excess deaths for long.
Those in Phase 2 of vaccination are at between 1%-2% chance of hospitalisation when sick. There are about 20 million of them yet uninfected and unvaccinated. That's 200,000-400,000 hospitalisations waiting for us; we can't sustain them all in a short period of time. Should we overwhelm the NHS, the death rate becomes significant, even in these.
We have fully vaccinated about 8% of the country, of whom about half have full protection. We've given a single dose to far more, but that doesn't have the full effect (it does more than enough to be very much worth giving it). We've got 300,000-600,000 hospitalisations waiting for us in the 1-dose-vaccinated if we let it rip now.
So, overall, 500,000-1,000,000 hospitalisations if we let it rip fully right now.
Asset to the site.
So are all the eloquent paeans to liberty but they are much easier to do and we are knee deep.
That does put into perspective just how transient the yes vote is.
They're quoting 52% Yes, 48% No [haven't I seen those figures somewhere else?], which I wouldn't have thought was anywhere near enough for the SNP to risk a referendum.
But I think you are right about the transience of the Yes vote (or rather, the Yes opinion-poll figure). It does seem to vary according to very short-term factors which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with independence. It wouldn't be surprising if respondents used it as a proxy to express dissatisfaction with the UK government, or conversely with the SNP government.
Why wouldn't 52% Yes be enough to risk a referendum. Quite frankly 48% from their perspective ought to be enough to risk it.
As the IRA used to say, they need to get lucky once. Not many expected the Brexit referendum to be lost by the Westminster government but it was and we're out now.
If they lose a second referendum that might be the end of the matter (like in Canada), or they can regather and find a new grievance to push and then push for a third - until the Scottish voters decide enough is enough.
They can't keep holding referendums. They'd need at least a vaguely plausible excuse to run another one after losing the next. This time they can shoot the 'but Brexit has changed everything' line (it's even true, albeit in the wrong direction in terms of the economic viability of independence), but they couldn't use that excuse a second time.
You're right they couldn't, but they're professional grievance mongers.
That's why its not right to blame Brexit for the SNP being pro independence. It isn't true. Its an excuse they've grasped with both hands open, but if it wasn't Brexit it would be the Tory majority or not honouring some fine detail of the pledge, or any other reason. That's what nationalists do.
The only question is whether the Scots become tired of it. The Quebecois got tired of it after the second evolution, Quebec was given more powers and the locals became happy with their status quo. Partially because they now get vast fiscal transfers from western Canadian provinces like Alberta so they have little reason to seek independence anymore.
Whether people are eager to buy another excuse for another vote later on would be up to the voters of Scotland, as it is in any democracy.
"The BBC will not make programmes aimed specifically at older viewers because their tastes are too varied, the corporation has said. Instead, the over-50s are urged to enjoy shows made for a “general audience”.
So alienate further the only demographic that watch consistently in very large numbers and go for a market that aren't interested in your output.....good job they don't work in the private sector...
No. If the BBC's critics read the linked article, they'd see the BBC is agreeing with Charlie Higson's complaints about the BBC. There is no over-50s demographic. People who grew up during the war, or during post-war austerity, or the birth of rock and roll, or the swinging sixties, or the 1970s with decimalisation, joining the Common Market (what could possibly go wrong?), Thatcherism and punk, have nothing in common except being over 50. Oh, and some of them started out life eating spicy food in sunner climes.
As anyone who has worked with older people will know, they are not all the same. This is what the BBC is saying. This is what Charlie Higson was complaining about. The stereotype that over 50s want to sing along to Vera Lynn over pictures of tanks is absurd. Captain Tom was 100. That's double 50. Almost everyone who'd fought in the war is now dead or Prince Philip.
Or, from the original Telegraph link, what the BBC said was:
“We find that tastes in older age groups vary just as much as those in any other age range - for example, some older viewers prefer quizzes, soaps and lighter programmes whilst others prefer more cultural or factual programmes.
“This being the case, there simply isn’t a typical programme or range of shows that would appeal specifically to older audiences, and that’s why our television channels and radio stations and the information on our website is for a general audience… we are a general broadcaster so by definition our approach has to be general and broad, so there needs to be a degree of compromise.”
Last case reported in Gibraltar was April 1st. They held an indoors boxing event where ~ 1/70th of the entire population attended recently. Vaccinations work.
Seems improbable to me that almost a full third of SNP constituency voters would vote for someone else on the list, indeed, that 15% is all of Grn and Alba support, so some of the SNP's constituency vote is going Unionist on the list? I don't think so.
I think that you are putting too much assumption about SNP voters being committed Indie voters. There will be a non-zero number of people who vote SNP in the Constituency and Labour on the List (a die hard anti-Tory in Perthshire for example); or who vote Lib Dem on the List, but vote for the local (SNP) MSP for personal reasons (they helped their aunt with an issue, or whatever)
Non-zero, yes. But just look at how the vote changes from 2016, with the Greens doubling their list vote, the SNP adding significantly to their constituency vote but losing a lot of list votes.
I think a much more likely result can be achieved by knocking 2% off SNP constituency vote, and moving 2% from Greens to SNP on the list vote.
That does put into perspective just how transient the yes vote is.
They're quoting 52% Yes, 48% No [haven't I seen those figures somewhere else?], which I wouldn't have thought was anywhere near enough for the SNP to risk a referendum.
But I think you are right about the transience of the Yes vote (or rather, the Yes opinion-poll figure). It does seem to vary according to very short-term factors which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with independence. It wouldn't be surprising if respondents used it as a proxy to express dissatisfaction with the UK government, or conversely with the SNP government.
Is there really a "risk" to a referendum? Even if they lose, the principle that it was a "once in a generation" vote is shot, so a third referendum becomes a possibility. And the current argument that Brexit is a sufficiently large change in circumstances is a use-it-or-lose-it deal - fail to call a referendum on that basis within a year or two and the opportunity is gone forever. They may as well go for it as far as I can see.
And anyway, losing in 2014 wrought huge returns at Westminster in the following year's election, so it's not as though losing has a history of harming the independence movement.
Most likely Sturgeon if there is a Nationalist majority at Holyrood, under pressure from Salmond will hold one, Unionists will boycott it and Boris will ignore the result.
Salmond will then tell her to declare UDI, Sturgeon will ignore him, say she did her best and get back to the day job
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
No.
I don't want to go to an outdoor pub. I want to visit my grandparents and they aren't healthy enough to be spending time outdoors in the cold. They've had both vaccines but it will still be illegal to visit them in their living room before 17 May. 😠
I did say "bend a few (unpoliced) rules".
Visiting others indoors isn't "bending the rules" it is "breaking the law".
If the only solution is to break the law, then the law is an ass.
You wouldn't break the speed limits to avoid being late for something important?
That does put into perspective just how transient the yes vote is.
They're quoting 52% Yes, 48% No [haven't I seen those figures somewhere else?], which I wouldn't have thought was anywhere near enough for the SNP to risk a referendum.
But I think you are right about the transience of the Yes vote (or rather, the Yes opinion-poll figure). It does seem to vary according to very short-term factors which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with independence. It wouldn't be surprising if respondents used it as a proxy to express dissatisfaction with the UK government, or conversely with the SNP government.
Why wouldn't 52% Yes be enough to risk a referendum. Quite frankly 48% from their perspective ought to be enough to risk it.
As the IRA used to say, they need to get lucky once. Not many expected the Brexit referendum to be lost by the Westminster government but it was and we're out now.
If they lose a second referendum that might be the end of the matter (like in Canada), or they can regather and find a new grievance to push and then push for a third - until the Scottish voters decide enough is enough.
Even more reason to refuse a legal indyref2, as Boris will do, as even if Unionists narrowly win it the SNP will push for a third referendum shortly after.
Canada only resolved the matter by allowing Quebec's second independence referendum in 1980 a full 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, then even though No only narrowly won with 51% the matter was resolved with devomax for Quebec
You do know Canada didn't "allow" the second independence referendum, it was held at a time the Quebecois chose for it to be held. So why do you continue to lie about this?
Do you not care for having integrity?
It was still the Canadian government's decision, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that Quebec independence would have been illegal without the approval of the Federal government of Canada.
Spain's government since of course has refused to allow the Catalan nationalist majority government even 1 legal independence referendum, as Tories we should follow the example of our sister party the Popular Party when they were in government and say a firm No to the Nationalists. 2014 was a once in a generation vote
That is a lie and you know it. It was not the Canadian government's decision to "allow" 15 years for the date.
The Supreme Court of Canada did not choose 15 years for the date. In fact the Supreme Court ruling came after the referendum and you know that, so stop lying.
The only people who chose the date were the Quebecois voters and the Quebecois government. The federal government had no say in it and you know that.
I wonder if Alba are going to totally crater. Salmond looks so weird and creepy now (and I have a fair tolerance for oversexed alpha males in middle age). Add to that his bizarre remarks about the Skripal poisoning and Putin, and his weird declarations, avowals and oaths, like he is Moses on top of Arthur's Seat.
It's not a pleasant or sensible prospect.
He may get close to zero MSPs while still fracturing the Indy vote. He might end up humiliated and even angrier. lol
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
Yes, next week is a biggee. I have skiing booked at Snowdome and three pub bookings. I'm feeling grumpy like everyone else this morning but I don't count as I've been grumpy for months.
Actually "grumpy" is not the word. "Scared and trapped" is closer. Waking up in a panic is a regular theme.
Let's see how things feel a week from now. For me the opening ups next Monday, whilst far from the end of the affair, are a really meaningful step.
@ Stocky. 'Deep funk' is how I described my condition to a work colleague yesterday. My productivity is in the waste basket.
Weirdly, my productivity is waaaaay up
In Lockdown 1 I did barely anything. Not a flint was knapped, or maybe one microlith was shaved
I cooked. I swived, I sat in the sun, I doomscrolled, I ate more chorizo, I went for loooooooong walks in the rolling hills
Lockdown 2 I drank very heavily and got suicidal and again did near-zero work
Lockdown 3 I work every day, quite passionately, much more than I would normally. The flints are shaped, and self-tested. I think this is because it is the only way I can stay sane, as the weather is too horrible for walks and sunbathing, I am growing very bored of cooking, and I am alone. Work saves me. Arbeit macht me frei
As I believe Jackson Pollock said (or was it Ian Fleming?), "Work is not the problem, it's what to do when you're not working, that's the problem"
Agree with you on the cooking. Heartily sick and tired of it. And I used to love it.
My work trajectory has been busy in Spring 2020, little work product output in summer 2020 but a lot of useful research, very busy Sept 2020-Feb 2021, useless since.
I went to a social function on Saturday, and SOMEONE ELSE cooked me a delicious meal of roast leg of lamb, and served it to me, and then cleaned up, and I just sat there and drank wine and chatted
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
No.
I don't want to go to an outdoor pub. I want to visit my grandparents and they aren't healthy enough to be spending time outdoors in the cold. They've had both vaccines but it will still be illegal to visit them in their living room before 17 May. 😠
I did say "bend a few (unpoliced) rules".
Visiting others indoors isn't "bending the rules" it is "breaking the law".
If the only solution is to break the law, then the law is an ass.
You wouldn't break the speed limits to avoid being late for something important?
Sharing a sense of despair and powerlessness this morning with Maffew, Leon, alex, Mortimer, Black Rock and others (you know who you are) ... "we few, we happy few, we band of brothers" ... maybe, just maybe a small resistance movement is beginning to stir. My sense of despair comes from a frustration that the government knows something I don't.
As a rule of thumb, never believe what a politician says, watch what they do. Despite the overwhelming evidence in the public domain that COVID is now a miniscule risk, they are constantly moving the goalposts - why is that? What sane person would want this nightmare to continue a moment longer than absolutely necessary?
There are 3 possibilities:
1. The vaccine is not nearly as effective as we are led to believe. The plummeting infections, hospitalizations and death rates are actually a result of the lockdown. Therefore, different ongoing restrictions need to be dreamt up for the foreseeable ... 2. The vaccine is extremely effective but the government has terrified the population to such an extent that zero-covid is the de-facto end state. Therefore, different ongoing restrictions need to be dreamt up for the foreseeable ... 3. The vaccine is extremely effective and the government sees it as a means to introduce an ID card by the back door (to control movement, behaviour, access to services, etc). Therefore, different ongoing restrictions need to be dreamt up for the foreseeable ...
It it's #1, we're screwed. If it's #3, we're screwed (if you enjoy freedom and the British way of life).
I'm clinging to the hope that it's #2 because in that case there is a chance, however slim, that our tiny minority of resistance fighters will grow to the point the government will get the message that enough is enough - we've beaten this thing down to the level of seasonal flu; let's live with it. Change the messaging. Get back to normal (not "more normal" or "something approaching normal" ... just "normal").
My view is we should lift all restrictions now - immediately. I very reluctantly accept that we will have to wait until June 21st for that (but my Tory vote is lost forever - these people are not conservatives). I fear that after June 21st there will still be restrictions in place.
Covid is not, yet, a minuscule risk. Absolutely not. Smaller, shrinking, but not minuscule.
Sorry but it is, deaths are below average now. We have negative excess deaths.
There is no excuse not to be at Stage 3 already, July 2020 restrictions. The vulnerable have been vaccinated, deaths are below average, R has collapsed and we are past the point of share of people vaccinated that Israel was at when they lifted restrictions.
I'm as frustrated as anyone, but the logic that right now, with current restrictions, we have negative excess deaths means that we can get rid of all restrictions right now doesn't hold up. Last August, we had negative excess deaths. The unlocking we did was cautious and limited and still saw an increase. Should we drop all restrictions right now, we won't be at negative excess deaths for long.
Those in Phase 2 of vaccination are at between 1%-2% chance of hospitalisation when sick. There are about 20 million of them yet uninfected and unvaccinated. That's 200,000-400,000 hospitalisations waiting for us; we can't sustain them all in a short period of time. Should we overwhelm the NHS, the death rate becomes significant, even in these.
We have fully vaccinated about 8% of the country, of whom about half have full protection. We've given a single dose to far more, but that doesn't have the full effect (it does more than enough to be very much worth giving it). We've got 300,000-600,000 hospitalisations waiting for us in the 1-dose-vaccinated if we let it rip now.
So, overall, 500,000-1,000,000 hospitalisations if we let it rip fully right now.
Asset to the site.
So are all the eloquent paeans to liberty but they are much easier to do and we are knee deep.
Agree re: Andy. Big fan. Interesting that we are knee-deep - wasn't the case until recently.
That does put into perspective just how transient the yes vote is.
They're quoting 52% Yes, 48% No [haven't I seen those figures somewhere else?], which I wouldn't have thought was anywhere near enough for the SNP to risk a referendum.
But I think you are right about the transience of the Yes vote (or rather, the Yes opinion-poll figure). It does seem to vary according to very short-term factors which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with independence. It wouldn't be surprising if respondents used it as a proxy to express dissatisfaction with the UK government, or conversely with the SNP government.
Why wouldn't 52% Yes be enough to risk a referendum. Quite frankly 48% from their perspective ought to be enough to risk it.
As the IRA used to say, they need to get lucky once. Not many expected the Brexit referendum to be lost by the Westminster government but it was and we're out now.
If they lose a second referendum that might be the end of the matter (like in Canada), or they can regather and find a new grievance to push and then push for a third - until the Scottish voters decide enough is enough.
Even more reason to refuse a legal indyref2, as Boris will do, as even if Unionists narrowly win it the SNP will push for a third referendum shortly after.
Canada only resolved the matter by allowing Quebec's second independence referendum in 1980 a full 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, then even though No only narrowly won with 51% the matter was resolved with devomax for Quebec
You do know Canada didn't "allow" the second independence referendum, it was held at a time the Quebecois chose for it to be held. So why do you continue to lie about this?
Do you not care for having integrity?
You clearly don't because you are an unquestioning fanboy of Boris Johnson, the most dishonest person to hold the position of PM in several generations.
I wonder if Alba are going to totally crater. Salmond looks so weird and creepy now (and I have a fair tolerance for oversexed alpha males in middle age). Add to that his bizarre remarks about the Skripal poisoning and Putin, and his weird declarations, avowals and oaths, like he is Moses on top of Arthur's Seat.
It's not a pleasant or sensible prospect.
He may get close to zero MSPs while still fracturing the Indy vote. He might end up humiliated and even angrier. lol
It's the great unknown. Will alba pull it off and get 10% with 12 seats by stealing 20% of the SNP list vote (remembering that most SNP voters know voting SNP on the list is fairly pointless) or will they crash below 5% and take the SNP majority with it.
I doubt anyone will know until the day of the election.
I wonder if Alba are going to totally crater. Salmond looks so weird and creepy now (and I have a fair tolerance for oversexed alpha males in middle age). Add to that his bizarre remarks about the Skripal poisoning and Putin, and his weird declarations, avowals and oaths, like he is Moses on top of Arthur's Seat.
It's not a pleasant or sensible prospect.
He may get close to zero MSPs while still fracturing the Indy vote. He might end up humiliated and even angrier. lol
We are assuming that the Indy supermajority is Salmond's overriding aim. I am sure he wants that, but I think the crucial thing is getting him back into Holyrood, where he will continue dismantling Sturgeon - a process that he has wisely suspended during this election campaign. If WM votes to give MSP's parliamentary privilege as they have in WM, he'll be able to reveal whatever evidence he wants to.
I have to say if AZ is restricted for under 50s then it may actually speed up the overall programme as the new Moderna deliveries would have to be reserved for under 50s and that can be done with a 4 week gap.
I wonder if Alba are going to totally crater. Salmond looks so weird and creepy now (and I have a fair tolerance for oversexed alpha males in middle age). Add to that his bizarre remarks about the Skripal poisoning and Putin, and his weird declarations, avowals and oaths, like he is Moses on top of Arthur's Seat.
It's not a pleasant or sensible prospect.
He may get close to zero MSPs while still fracturing the Indy vote. He might end up humiliated and even angrier. lol
We are assuming that the Indy supermajority is Salmond's overriding aim. I am sure he wants that, but I think the crucial thing is getting him back into Holyrood, where he will continue dismantling Sturgeon - a process that he has wisely suspended during this election campaign. If WM votes to give MSP's parliamentary privilege as they have in WM, he'll be able to reveal whatever evidence he wants to.
Presumably others will also be able to use the same weapon against him too. Should be interesting if it happens.
Sharing a sense of despair and powerlessness this morning with Maffew, Leon, alex, Mortimer, Black Rock and others (you know who you are) ... "we few, we happy few, we band of brothers" ... maybe, just maybe a small resistance movement is beginning to stir. My sense of despair comes from a frustration that the government knows something I don't.
As a rule of thumb, never believe what a politician says, watch what they do. Despite the overwhelming evidence in the public domain that COVID is now a miniscule risk, they are constantly moving the goalposts - why is that? What sane person would want this nightmare to continue a moment longer than absolutely necessary?
There are 3 possibilities:
1. The vaccine is not nearly as effective as we are led to believe. The plummeting infections, hospitalizations and death rates are actually a result of the lockdown. Therefore, different ongoing restrictions need to be dreamt up for the foreseeable ... 2. The vaccine is extremely effective but the government has terrified the population to such an extent that zero-covid is the de-facto end state. Therefore, different ongoing restrictions need to be dreamt up for the foreseeable ... 3. The vaccine is extremely effective and the government sees it as a means to introduce an ID card by the back door (to control movement, behaviour, access to services, etc). Therefore, different ongoing restrictions need to be dreamt up for the foreseeable ...
It it's #1, we're screwed. If it's #3, we're screwed (if you enjoy freedom and the British way of life).
I'm clinging to the hope that it's #2 because in that case there is a chance, however slim, that our tiny minority of resistance fighters will grow to the point the government will get the message that enough is enough - we've beaten this thing down to the level of seasonal flu; let's live with it. Change the messaging. Get back to normal (not "more normal" or "something approaching normal" ... just "normal").
My view is we should lift all restrictions now - immediately. I very reluctantly accept that we will have to wait until June 21st for that (but my Tory vote is lost forever - these people are not conservatives). I fear that after June 21st there will still be restrictions in place.
Covid is not, yet, a minuscule risk. Absolutely not. Smaller, shrinking, but not minuscule.
Sorry but it is, deaths are below average now. We have negative excess deaths.
There is no excuse not to be at Stage 3 already, July 2020 restrictions. The vulnerable have been vaccinated, deaths are below average, R has collapsed and we are past the point of share of people vaccinated that Israel was at when they lifted restrictions.
I'm as frustrated as anyone, but the logic that right now, with current restrictions, we have negative excess deaths means that we can get rid of all restrictions right now doesn't hold up. Last August, we had negative excess deaths. The unlocking we did was cautious and limited and still saw an increase. Should we drop all restrictions right now, we won't be at negative excess deaths for long.
Those in Phase 2 of vaccination are at between 1%-2% chance of hospitalisation when sick. There are about 20 million of them yet uninfected and unvaccinated. That's 200,000-400,000 hospitalisations waiting for us; we can't sustain them all in a short period of time. Should we overwhelm the NHS, the death rate becomes significant, even in these.
We have fully vaccinated about 8% of the country, of whom about half have full protection. We've given a single dose to far more, but that doesn't have the full effect (it does more than enough to be very much worth giving it). We've got 300,000-600,000 hospitalisations waiting for us in the 1-dose-vaccinated if we let it rip now.
So, overall, 500,000-1,000,000 hospitalisations if we let it rip fully right now.
I accept your 200-400k figure, but not your 300-600k. Immunity starts building 6 days after 1st shot: 21 days from first shot, hospitalization numbers fall close to zero. So of those on 1st shot, only those less than 3 weeks out would be expected to contribute to hospitalizations significantly, and even within those, those in the 14-21 days out will not contribute much at all. So of those 3m per week doses, week 1 = 30-60k, week 2 = 15-30k, week 3 = 10k, total 55-100k from 1st doses, not 300-600k.
I very much agree with your overall point, living as I do in Maryland which has opened up too quickly. But I think you should use realistic numbers if you want to convince others.
I was using the 85% reduction from the SIREN study for protection built from week 5 onwards.
After both doses (+14 days), the number looks to be close towards 100% for hospitalisations and mortality; it'll never be exactly 100% but should be upper nineties.
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
Yes, next week is a biggee. I have skiing booked at Snowdome and three pub bookings. I'm feeling grumpy like everyone else this morning but I don't count as I've been grumpy for months.
Actually "grumpy" is not the word. "Scared and trapped" is closer. Waking up in a panic is a regular theme.
Let's see how things feel a week from now. For me the opening ups next Monday, whilst far from the end of the affair, are a really meaningful step.
@ Stocky. 'Deep funk' is how I described my condition to a work colleague yesterday. My productivity is in the waste basket.
Weirdly, my productivity is waaaaay up
In Lockdown 1 I did barely anything. Not a flint was knapped, or maybe one microlith was shaved
I cooked. I swived, I sat in the sun, I doomscrolled, I ate more chorizo, I went for loooooooong walks in the rolling hills
Lockdown 2 I drank very heavily and got suicidal and again did near-zero work
Lockdown 3 I work every day, quite passionately, much more than I would normally. The flints are shaped, and self-tested. I think this is because it is the only way I can stay sane, as the weather is too horrible for walks and sunbathing, I am growing very bored of cooking, and I am alone. Work saves me. Arbeit macht me frei
As I believe Jackson Pollock said (or was it Ian Fleming?), "Work is not the problem, it's what to do when you're not working, that's the problem"
Agree with you on the cooking. Heartily sick and tired of it. And I used to love it.
My work trajectory has been busy in Spring 2020, little work product output in summer 2020 but a lot of useful research, very busy Sept 2020-Feb 2021, useless since.
I went to a social function on Saturday, and SOMEONE ELSE cooked me a delicious meal of roast leg of lamb, and served it to me, and then cleaned up, and I just sat there and drank wine and chatted
I have to say if AZ is restricted for under 50s then it may actually speed up the overall programme as the new Moderna deliveries would have to be reserved for under 50s and that can be done with a 4 week gap.
That does put into perspective just how transient the yes vote is.
They're quoting 52% Yes, 48% No [haven't I seen those figures somewhere else?], which I wouldn't have thought was anywhere near enough for the SNP to risk a referendum.
But I think you are right about the transience of the Yes vote (or rather, the Yes opinion-poll figure). It does seem to vary according to very short-term factors which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with independence. It wouldn't be surprising if respondents used it as a proxy to express dissatisfaction with the UK government, or conversely with the SNP government.
Is there really a "risk" to a referendum? Even if they lose, the principle that it was a "once in a generation" vote is shot, so a third referendum becomes a possibility. And the current argument that Brexit is a sufficiently large change in circumstances is a use-it-or-lose-it deal - fail to call a referendum on that basis within a year or two and the opportunity is gone forever. They may as well go for it as far as I can see.
And anyway, losing in 2014 wrought huge returns at Westminster in the following year's election, so it's not as though losing has a history of harming the independence movement.
Most likely Sturgeon if there is a Nationalist majority at Holyrood, under pressure from Salmond will hold one, Unionists will boycott it and Boris will ignore the result.
Salmond will then tell her to declare UDI, Sturgeon will ignore him, say she did her best and get back to the day job
Even if that is the single most likely scenario (I don't think it is), it can't be more than a 10% shot that all that happens exactly as you've said.
That does put into perspective just how transient the yes vote is.
They're quoting 52% Yes, 48% No [haven't I seen those figures somewhere else?], which I wouldn't have thought was anywhere near enough for the SNP to risk a referendum.
But I think you are right about the transience of the Yes vote (or rather, the Yes opinion-poll figure). It does seem to vary according to very short-term factors which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with independence. It wouldn't be surprising if respondents used it as a proxy to express dissatisfaction with the UK government, or conversely with the SNP government.
Why wouldn't 52% Yes be enough to risk a referendum. Quite frankly 48% from their perspective ought to be enough to risk it.
As the IRA used to say, they need to get lucky once. Not many expected the Brexit referendum to be lost by the Westminster government but it was and we're out now.
If they lose a second referendum that might be the end of the matter (like in Canada), or they can regather and find a new grievance to push and then push for a third - until the Scottish voters decide enough is enough.
Even more reason to refuse a legal indyref2, as Boris will do, as even if Unionists narrowly win it the SNP will push for a third referendum shortly after.
Canada only resolved the matter by allowing Quebec's second independence referendum in 1980 a full 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, then even though No only narrowly won with 51% the matter was resolved with devomax for Quebec
You do know Canada didn't "allow" the second independence referendum, it was held at a time the Quebecois chose for it to be held. So why do you continue to lie about this?
Do you not care for having integrity?
You clearly don't because you are an unquestioning fanboy of Boris Johnson, the most dishonest person to hold the position of PM in several generations.
Except I'm not an unquestioning fan of Boris Johnson. I've been venting attacking the government's stupid and "inhumane" decisions on lifting lockdown all thread. I said the government was "losing my respect" at 10:49am for instance and have made other remarks too.
Indeed I frequently attack the government; if I have a reason to do so. Johnson is wrong at the slow pace of lifting lockdown (we should be at Stage 3/July 2020 level of restrictions already) and wrong to deny Scotland a democratic choice on its own future - and wrong on other issues.
Just because I agree with Johnson on Europe doesn't make me unquestioning. But your zealotry and refusal to see beyond the tiny issue of just Europe in people makes you a terrible judge of character. As @Leon says, you're a prime example of Strasbourg Syndrome.
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
No.
I don't want to go to an outdoor pub. I want to visit my grandparents and they aren't healthy enough to be spending time outdoors in the cold. They've had both vaccines but it will still be illegal to visit them in their living room before 17 May. 😠
I did say "bend a few (unpoliced) rules".
Visiting others indoors isn't "bending the rules" it is "breaking the law".
If the only solution is to break the law, then the law is an ass.
You wouldn't break the speed limits to avoid being late for something important?
On my own? Yes.
With my wife and children in the car? No.
In which case you believe it ok to risk other peoples' children then.
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
Yes, next week is a biggee. I have skiing booked at Snowdome and three pub bookings. I'm feeling grumpy like everyone else this morning but I don't count as I've been grumpy for months.
Actually "grumpy" is not the word. "Scared and trapped" is closer. Waking up in a panic is a regular theme.
Let's see how things feel a week from now. For me the opening ups next Monday, whilst far from the end of the affair, are a really meaningful step.
@ Stocky. 'Deep funk' is how I described my condition to a work colleague yesterday. My productivity is in the waste basket.
Weirdly, my productivity is waaaaay up
In Lockdown 1 I did barely anything. Not a flint was knapped, or maybe one microlith was shaved
I cooked. I swived, I sat in the sun, I doomscrolled, I ate more chorizo, I went for loooooooong walks in the rolling hills
Lockdown 2 I drank very heavily and got suicidal and again did near-zero work
Lockdown 3 I work every day, quite passionately, much more than I would normally. The flints are shaped, and self-tested. I think this is because it is the only way I can stay sane, as the weather is too horrible for walks and sunbathing, I am growing very bored of cooking, and I am alone. Work saves me. Arbeit macht me frei
As I believe Jackson Pollock said (or was it Ian Fleming?), "Work is not the problem, it's what to do when you're not working, that's the problem"
Agree with you on the cooking. Heartily sick and tired of it. And I used to love it.
My work trajectory has been busy in Spring 2020, little work product output in summer 2020 but a lot of useful research, very busy Sept 2020-Feb 2021, useless since.
I went to a social function on Saturday, and SOMEONE ELSE cooked me a delicious meal of roast leg of lamb, and served it to me, and then cleaned up, and I just sat there and drank wine and chatted
It was so marvellous I almost cried
Pseud's Corner material.
You know that's not true. I can do MUCH pseudier than that, should I be minded
"The BBC will not make programmes aimed specifically at older viewers because their tastes are too varied, the corporation has said. Instead, the over-50s are urged to enjoy shows made for a “general audience”.
So alienate further the only demographic that watch consistently in very large numbers and go for a market that aren't interested in your output.....good job they don't work in the private sector...
No. If the BBC's critics read the linked article, they'd see the BBC is agreeing with Charlie Higson's complaints about the BBC. There is no over-50s demographic. People who grew up during the war, or during post-war austerity, or the birth of rock and roll, or the swinging sixties, or the 1970s with decimalisation, joining the Common Market (what could possibly go wrong?), Thatcherism and punk, have nothing in common except being over 50. Oh, and some of them started out life eating spicy food in sunner climes.
As anyone who has worked with older people will know, they are not all the same. This is what the BBC is saying. This is what Charlie Higson was complaining about. The stereotype that over 50s want to sing along to Vera Lynn over pictures of tanks is absurd. Captain Tom was 100. That's double 50. Almost everyone who'd fought in the war is now dead or Prince Philip.
Or, from the original Telegraph link, what the BBC said was:
“We find that tastes in older age groups vary just as much as those in any other age range - for example, some older viewers prefer quizzes, soaps and lighter programmes whilst others prefer more cultural or factual programmes.
“This being the case, there simply isn’t a typical programme or range of shows that would appeal specifically to older audiences, and that’s why our television channels and radio stations and the information on our website is for a general audience… we are a general broadcaster so by definition our approach has to be general and broad, so there needs to be a degree of compromise.”
Perhaps the BBC might have a greater rate of creating hit shows if it didn't target demographic groups in such a patronising fashion. The starting point should be making amazing TV.
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
Yes, next week is a biggee. I have skiing booked at Snowdome and three pub bookings. I'm feeling grumpy like everyone else this morning but I don't count as I've been grumpy for months.
Actually "grumpy" is not the word. "Scared and trapped" is closer. Waking up in a panic is a regular theme.
Let's see how things feel a week from now. For me the opening ups next Monday, whilst far from the end of the affair, are a really meaningful step.
@ Stocky. 'Deep funk' is how I described my condition to a work colleague yesterday. My productivity is in the waste basket.
Weirdly, my productivity is waaaaay up
In Lockdown 1 I did barely anything. Not a flint was knapped, or maybe one microlith was shaved
I cooked. I swived, I sat in the sun, I doomscrolled, I ate more chorizo, I went for loooooooong walks in the rolling hills
Lockdown 2 I drank very heavily and got suicidal and again did near-zero work
Lockdown 3 I work every day, quite passionately, much more than I would normally. The flints are shaped, and self-tested. I think this is because it is the only way I can stay sane, as the weather is too horrible for walks and sunbathing, I am growing very bored of cooking, and I am alone. Work saves me. Arbeit macht me frei
As I believe Jackson Pollock said (or was it Ian Fleming?), "Work is not the problem, it's what to do when you're not working, that's the problem"
Agree with you on the cooking. Heartily sick and tired of it. And I used to love it.
My work trajectory has been busy in Spring 2020, little work product output in summer 2020 but a lot of useful research, very busy Sept 2020-Feb 2021, useless since.
I went to a social function on Saturday, and SOMEONE ELSE cooked me a delicious meal of roast leg of lamb, and served it to me, and then cleaned up, and I just sat there and drank wine and chatted
It was so marvellous I almost cried
Pseud's Corner material.
As I keep saying, the Times should give him one of Giles Coren's umpteen columns. He could do the job better for half the price.
That does put into perspective just how transient the yes vote is.
They're quoting 52% Yes, 48% No [haven't I seen those figures somewhere else?], which I wouldn't have thought was anywhere near enough for the SNP to risk a referendum.
But I think you are right about the transience of the Yes vote (or rather, the Yes opinion-poll figure). It does seem to vary according to very short-term factors which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with independence. It wouldn't be surprising if respondents used it as a proxy to express dissatisfaction with the UK government, or conversely with the SNP government.
Why wouldn't 52% Yes be enough to risk a referendum. Quite frankly 48% from their perspective ought to be enough to risk it.
As the IRA used to say, they need to get lucky once. Not many expected the Brexit referendum to be lost by the Westminster government but it was and we're out now.
If they lose a second referendum that might be the end of the matter (like in Canada), or they can regather and find a new grievance to push and then push for a third - until the Scottish voters decide enough is enough.
Even more reason to refuse a legal indyref2, as Boris will do, as even if Unionists narrowly win it the SNP will push for a third referendum shortly after.
Canada only resolved the matter by allowing Quebec's second independence referendum in 1980 a full 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, then even though No only narrowly won with 51% the matter was resolved with devomax for Quebec
You do know Canada didn't "allow" the second independence referendum, it was held at a time the Quebecois chose for it to be held. So why do you continue to lie about this?
Do you not care for having integrity?
It was still the Canadian government's decision, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that Quebec independence would have been illegal without the approval of the Federal government of Canada.
Spain's government since of course has refused to allow the Catalan nationalist majority government even 1 legal independence referendum, as Tories we should follow the example of our sister party the Popular Party when they were in government and say a firm No to the Nationalists. 2014 was a once in a generation vote
That is a lie and you know it. It was not the Canadian government's decision to "allow" 15 years for the date.
The Supreme Court of Canada did not choose 15 years for the date. In fact the Supreme Court ruling came after the referendum and you know that, so stop lying.
The only people who chose the date were the Quebecois voters and the Quebecois government. The federal government had no say in it and you know that.
Wrong, the Supreme Court of Canada stated after the referendum that a unilateral secession without the approval of the Federal Government of Canada would have been illegal.
Spain's government has of course refused any legal independence referendum by the Catalan nationalist government.
For now we Tories must follow the example of our conservative cousins in the Popular Party in Spain when they were in government in 2017 and refuse a legal independence referendum, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and there must be no concessions to the SNP and Salmond on that.
Pro independence liberals such as you can be ignored
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
Yes, next week is a biggee. I have skiing booked at Snowdome and three pub bookings. I'm feeling grumpy like everyone else this morning but I don't count as I've been grumpy for months.
Actually "grumpy" is not the word. "Scared and trapped" is closer. Waking up in a panic is a regular theme.
Let's see how things feel a week from now. For me the opening ups next Monday, whilst far from the end of the affair, are a really meaningful step.
@ Stocky. 'Deep funk' is how I described my condition to a work colleague yesterday. My productivity is in the waste basket.
Weirdly, my productivity is waaaaay up
In Lockdown 1 I did barely anything. Not a flint was knapped, or maybe one microlith was shaved
I cooked. I swived, I sat in the sun, I doomscrolled, I ate more chorizo, I went for loooooooong walks in the rolling hills
Lockdown 2 I drank very heavily and got suicidal and again did near-zero work
Lockdown 3 I work every day, quite passionately, much more than I would normally. The flints are shaped, and self-tested. I think this is because it is the only way I can stay sane, as the weather is too horrible for walks and sunbathing, I am growing very bored of cooking, and I am alone. Work saves me. Arbeit macht me frei
As I believe Jackson Pollock said (or was it Ian Fleming?), "Work is not the problem, it's what to do when you're not working, that's the problem"
Agree with you on the cooking. Heartily sick and tired of it. And I used to love it.
My work trajectory has been busy in Spring 2020, little work product output in summer 2020 but a lot of useful research, very busy Sept 2020-Feb 2021, useless since.
I went to a social function on Saturday, and SOMEONE ELSE cooked me a delicious meal of roast leg of lamb, and served it to me, and then cleaned up, and I just sat there and drank wine and chatted
It was so marvellous I almost cried
Pseud's Corner material.
As I keep saying, the Times should give him one of Giles Coren's umpteen columns. He could do the job better for half the price.
I believe he used to do it for the freebie holidays...
That does put into perspective just how transient the yes vote is.
They're quoting 52% Yes, 48% No [haven't I seen those figures somewhere else?], which I wouldn't have thought was anywhere near enough for the SNP to risk a referendum.
But I think you are right about the transience of the Yes vote (or rather, the Yes opinion-poll figure). It does seem to vary according to very short-term factors which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with independence. It wouldn't be surprising if respondents used it as a proxy to express dissatisfaction with the UK government, or conversely with the SNP government.
Why wouldn't 52% Yes be enough to risk a referendum. Quite frankly 48% from their perspective ought to be enough to risk it.
As the IRA used to say, they need to get lucky once. Not many expected the Brexit referendum to be lost by the Westminster government but it was and we're out now.
If they lose a second referendum that might be the end of the matter (like in Canada), or they can regather and find a new grievance to push and then push for a third - until the Scottish voters decide enough is enough.
Even more reason to refuse a legal indyref2, as Boris will do, as even if Unionists narrowly win it the SNP will push for a third referendum shortly after.
Canada only resolved the matter by allowing Quebec's second independence referendum in 1980 a full 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, then even though No only narrowly won with 51% the matter was resolved with devomax for Quebec
You do know Canada didn't "allow" the second independence referendum, it was held at a time the Quebecois chose for it to be held. So why do you continue to lie about this?
Do you not care for having integrity?
You clearly don't because you are an unquestioning fanboy of Boris Johnson, the most dishonest person to hold the position of PM in several generations.
Except I'm not an unquestioning fan of Boris Johnson. I've been venting attacking the government's stupid and "inhumane" decisions on lifting lockdown all thread. I said the government was "losing my respect" at 10:49am for instance and have made other remarks too.
Indeed I frequently attack the government; if I have a reason to do so. Johnson is wrong at the slow pace of lifting lockdown (we should be at Stage 3/July 2020 level of restrictions already) and wrong to deny Scotland a democratic choice on its own future - and wrong on other issues.
Just because I agree with Johnson on Europe doesn't make me unquestioning. But your zealotry and refusal to see beyond the tiny issue of just Europe in people makes you a terrible judge of character. As @Leon says, you're a prime example of Strasbourg Syndrome.
...yet you never call him out for his lying....funny that.
I think that it became worse when a defined time till the end of this was created.
A lot of people mentioned that June 21st felt a long, long way away....
I disagree actually. Having a defined timetable makes things easier for me. It means there's an end in sight and everything becomes more achievable. What I've been struggling with recently is all the suggestions that the timetable will be delayed or that ending legal restrictions doesn't actually mean ending legal restrictions.
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
No.
I don't want to go to an outdoor pub. I want to visit my grandparents and they aren't healthy enough to be spending time outdoors in the cold. They've had both vaccines but it will still be illegal to visit them in their living room before 17 May. 😠
I did say "bend a few (unpoliced) rules".
Visiting others indoors isn't "bending the rules" it is "breaking the law".
If the only solution is to break the law, then the law is an ass.
You wouldn't break the speed limits to avoid being late for something important?
On my own? Yes.
With my wife and children in the car? No.
In which case you believe it ok to risk other peoples' children then.
We all make our own decisions.
I wouldn't speed by a school, and I don't speed if its raining, but if I deem conditions are right I could do 80 to 90 on the motorway.
Whilst it's potentially inconvienient news this is a bit hyperbolic, we've 1st dosed ~ 60% of all adults and the virus is in abeyance.
It's not a disaster but it is very bad news
I cannot believe the MHRA is considering this. We've had 7 fatalities from 18m doses. WTAFFFFF
"Professor Adam Finn, from the University of Bristol and a member of the Government's vaccine advisory group, the JCVI, admitted pausing the AstraZeneca jab could threaten Britain's roadmap out of lockdown.
"He said today: 'We do need to keep the programme going if the plan to open things up and allow things to get back to normal is to proceed without another wave of the pandemic coming through. So it's quite a tricky balancing act here, getting the balance right, getting vaccines coming through... getting the risk-benefit right for people coming forward.' "
That does put into perspective just how transient the yes vote is.
They're quoting 52% Yes, 48% No [haven't I seen those figures somewhere else?], which I wouldn't have thought was anywhere near enough for the SNP to risk a referendum.
But I think you are right about the transience of the Yes vote (or rather, the Yes opinion-poll figure). It does seem to vary according to very short-term factors which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with independence. It wouldn't be surprising if respondents used it as a proxy to express dissatisfaction with the UK government, or conversely with the SNP government.
Why wouldn't 52% Yes be enough to risk a referendum. Quite frankly 48% from their perspective ought to be enough to risk it.
As the IRA used to say, they need to get lucky once. Not many expected the Brexit referendum to be lost by the Westminster government but it was and we're out now.
If they lose a second referendum that might be the end of the matter (like in Canada), or they can regather and find a new grievance to push and then push for a third - until the Scottish voters decide enough is enough.
Even more reason to refuse a legal indyref2, as Boris will do, as even if Unionists narrowly win it the SNP will push for a third referendum shortly after.
Canada only resolved the matter by allowing Quebec's second independence referendum in 1980 a full 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, then even though No only narrowly won with 51% the matter was resolved with devomax for Quebec
You do know Canada didn't "allow" the second independence referendum, it was held at a time the Quebecois chose for it to be held. So why do you continue to lie about this?
Do you not care for having integrity?
You clearly don't because you are an unquestioning fanboy of Boris Johnson, the most dishonest person to hold the position of PM in several generations.
Except I'm not an unquestioning fan of Boris Johnson. I've been venting attacking the government's stupid and "inhumane" decisions on lifting lockdown all thread. I said the government was "losing my respect" at 10:49am for instance and have made other remarks too.
Indeed I frequently attack the government; if I have a reason to do so. Johnson is wrong at the slow pace of lifting lockdown (we should be at Stage 3/July 2020 level of restrictions already) and wrong to deny Scotland a democratic choice on its own future - and wrong on other issues.
Just because I agree with Johnson on Europe doesn't make me unquestioning. But your zealotry and refusal to see beyond the tiny issue of just Europe in people makes you a terrible judge of character. As @Leon says, you're a prime example of Strasbourg Syndrome.
I'll let you into a little secret, I have made a very good living for many years by being a "judge of character", which has been based on experience of real life and considerable training, and have written well reviewed articles and books on the subject.
You, on the other hand, are an ignorant far right, fuckwit keyboard warrior who demonstrates on a daily basis that you know jack shit about most things you pronounce on. What is really annoying, though, is that you have yet again caused me to break my "be nice to idiots" resolution.
Whilst it's potentially inconvienient news this is a bit hyperbolic, we've 1st dosed ~ 60% of all adults and the virus is in abeyance.
It's not a disaster but it is very bad news
I cannot believe the MHRA is considering this. We've had 7 fatalities from 18m doses. WTAFFFFF
I'm not sure it's going to make a huge difference. Personally I'd rather have Moderna or Novavax than AZ anyway as I don't need to wait a minimum of 12 weeks to be fully immunised with a second dose.
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
No.
I don't want to go to an outdoor pub. I want to visit my grandparents and they aren't healthy enough to be spending time outdoors in the cold. They've had both vaccines but it will still be illegal to visit them in their living room before 17 May. 😠
I did say "bend a few (unpoliced) rules".
Visiting others indoors isn't "bending the rules" it is "breaking the law".
If the only solution is to break the law, then the law is an ass.
You wouldn't break the speed limits to avoid being late for something important?
On my own? Yes.
With my wife and children in the car? No.
In which case you believe it ok to risk other peoples' children then.
We all make our own decisions.
I wouldn't speed by a school, and I don't speed if its raining, but if I deem conditions are right I could do 80 to 90 on the motorway.
Everyone in the third lane does over 80 on a motorway. It's the ambient speed - custom and practice. Same goes with visiting grandparents as far as I'm concerned!
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
No.
I don't want to go to an outdoor pub. I want to visit my grandparents and they aren't healthy enough to be spending time outdoors in the cold. They've had both vaccines but it will still be illegal to visit them in their living room before 17 May. 😠
I did say "bend a few (unpoliced) rules".
Visiting others indoors isn't "bending the rules" it is "breaking the law".
If the only solution is to break the law, then the law is an ass.
You wouldn't break the speed limits to avoid being late for something important?
On my own? Yes.
With my wife and children in the car? No.
Having set off a bit late you wouldn't drive 35 in a 30 so as to drop your kids to school on time?
Utter sanctimonious bullshit.
Others might but I hardly believe a word you write about your private life. It's all transparent virtue-signalling.
Sorry, Philip, but that's my take. You carry on though. It's all part of PB's rich mosaic.
That does put into perspective just how transient the yes vote is.
They're quoting 52% Yes, 48% No [haven't I seen those figures somewhere else?], which I wouldn't have thought was anywhere near enough for the SNP to risk a referendum.
But I think you are right about the transience of the Yes vote (or rather, the Yes opinion-poll figure). It does seem to vary according to very short-term factors which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with independence. It wouldn't be surprising if respondents used it as a proxy to express dissatisfaction with the UK government, or conversely with the SNP government.
Why wouldn't 52% Yes be enough to risk a referendum. Quite frankly 48% from their perspective ought to be enough to risk it.
As the IRA used to say, they need to get lucky once. Not many expected the Brexit referendum to be lost by the Westminster government but it was and we're out now.
If they lose a second referendum that might be the end of the matter (like in Canada), or they can regather and find a new grievance to push and then push for a third - until the Scottish voters decide enough is enough.
Even more reason to refuse a legal indyref2, as Boris will do, as even if Unionists narrowly win it the SNP will push for a third referendum shortly after.
Canada only resolved the matter by allowing Quebec's second independence referendum in 1980 a full 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, then even though No only narrowly won with 51% the matter was resolved with devomax for Quebec
You do know Canada didn't "allow" the second independence referendum, it was held at a time the Quebecois chose for it to be held. So why do you continue to lie about this?
Do you not care for having integrity?
It was still the Canadian government's decision, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that Quebec independence would have been illegal without the approval of the Federal government of Canada.
Spain's government since of course has refused to allow the Catalan nationalist majority government even 1 legal independence referendum, as Tories we should follow the example of our sister party the Popular Party when they were in government and say a firm No to the Nationalists. 2014 was a once in a generation vote
That is a lie and you know it. It was not the Canadian government's decision to "allow" 15 years for the date.
The Supreme Court of Canada did not choose 15 years for the date. In fact the Supreme Court ruling came after the referendum and you know that, so stop lying.
The only people who chose the date were the Quebecois voters and the Quebecois government. The federal government had no say in it and you know that.
Wrong, the Supreme Court of Canada stated after the referendum that a unilateral secession without the approval of the Federal Government of Canada would have been illegal.
Spain's government has of course refused any legal independence referendum by the Catalan nationalist government.
For now we Tories must follow the example of our conservative cousins in the Popular Party in Spain and refuse a legal independence referendum, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and there must be no concessions to the SNP and Salmond on that.
Pro independence liberals such as you can be ignored
You can not be this stupid.
Them speaking "after the referendum" means they didn't choose the fifteen year date. 🤦♂️
A unilateral secession without the approval of Westminster would be illegal too, that's no different to what the Supreme Court ruled. But the 15 year date was the choice of the Quebecois, it was not what was "allowed". If the Scots choose differently, then they choose differently. That is democracy.
Whilst it's potentially inconvienient news this is a bit hyperbolic, we've 1st dosed ~ 60% of all adults and the virus is in abeyance.
It's not a disaster but it is very bad news
I cannot believe the MHRA is considering this. We've had 7 fatalities from 18m doses. WTAFFFFF
I'm not sure it's going to make a huge difference. Personally I'd rather have Moderna or Novavax than AZ anyway as I don't need to wait a minimum of 12 weeks to be fully immunised with a second dose.
Then why is this member of the JCVI saying it could "threaten the roadmap"?
If they extend unlockdowning, my vague and morose apathy, alleviated by hard work and chat on here, might tip into alcoholic desolation. It really could. Jeez
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
No.
I don't want to go to an outdoor pub. I want to visit my grandparents and they aren't healthy enough to be spending time outdoors in the cold. They've had both vaccines but it will still be illegal to visit them in their living room before 17 May. 😠
I did say "bend a few (unpoliced) rules".
Visiting others indoors isn't "bending the rules" it is "breaking the law".
If the only solution is to break the law, then the law is an ass.
You wouldn't break the speed limits to avoid being late for something important?
On my own? Yes.
With my wife and children in the car? No.
Having set off a bit late you wouldn't drive 35 in a 30 so as to drop your kids to school on time?
Utter sanctimonious bullshit.
Others might but I hardly believe a word you write about your private life. It's all transparent virtue-signalling.
Sorry, Philip, but that's my take. You carry on though. It's all part of PB's rich mosaic.
Oh no - you were a voice of calm - now you've caught this morning's grumpy bug too.
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
No.
I don't want to go to an outdoor pub. I want to visit my grandparents and they aren't healthy enough to be spending time outdoors in the cold. They've had both vaccines but it will still be illegal to visit them in their living room before 17 May. 😠
I did say "bend a few (unpoliced) rules".
Visiting others indoors isn't "bending the rules" it is "breaking the law".
If the only solution is to break the law, then the law is an ass.
You wouldn't break the speed limits to avoid being late for something important?
On my own? Yes.
With my wife and children in the car? No.
In which case you believe it ok to risk other peoples' children then.
We all make our own decisions.
I wouldn't speed by a school, and I don't speed if its raining, but if I deem conditions are right I could do 80 to 90 on the motorway.
Everyone in the third lane does over 80 on a motorway. It's the ambient speed - custom and practice. Same goes with visiting grandparents as far as I'm concerned!
For those cars whose speedo in the third lane reads 80, they are probably doing about 72.
Whilst it's potentially inconvienient news this is a bit hyperbolic, we've 1st dosed ~ 60% of all adults and the virus is in abeyance.
It's not a disaster but it is very bad news
I cannot believe the MHRA is considering this. We've had 7 fatalities from 18m doses. WTAFFFFF
"Professor Adam Finn, from the University of Bristol and a member of the Government's vaccine advisory group, the JCVI, admitted pausing the AstraZeneca jab could threaten Britain's roadmap out of lockdown.
"He said today: 'We do need to keep the programme going if the plan to open things up and allow things to get back to normal is to proceed without another wave of the pandemic coming through. So it's quite a tricky balancing act here, getting the balance right, getting vaccines coming through... getting the risk-benefit right for people coming forward.' "
Get tae fuck
I'm afraid I'm in paranoid polly meltdown mode about this and I'm just seeing 'vaccine passports' behind all this.
That's not good for me, so I'll probably limit my access to 'current affairs', and concentrate on the many other wonderful things in my life that I can control, rather than annoying things that I can't, and trust that there's a pattern and that the best outcome will prevail.
That does put into perspective just how transient the yes vote is.
They're quoting 52% Yes, 48% No [haven't I seen those figures somewhere else?], which I wouldn't have thought was anywhere near enough for the SNP to risk a referendum.
But I think you are right about the transience of the Yes vote (or rather, the Yes opinion-poll figure). It does seem to vary according to very short-term factors which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with independence. It wouldn't be surprising if respondents used it as a proxy to express dissatisfaction with the UK government, or conversely with the SNP government.
Why wouldn't 52% Yes be enough to risk a referendum. Quite frankly 48% from their perspective ought to be enough to risk it.
As the IRA used to say, they need to get lucky once. Not many expected the Brexit referendum to be lost by the Westminster government but it was and we're out now.
If they lose a second referendum that might be the end of the matter (like in Canada), or they can regather and find a new grievance to push and then push for a third - until the Scottish voters decide enough is enough.
Even more reason to refuse a legal indyref2, as Boris will do, as even if Unionists narrowly win it the SNP will push for a third referendum shortly after.
Canada only resolved the matter by allowing Quebec's second independence referendum in 1980 a full 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, then even though No only narrowly won with 51% the matter was resolved with devomax for Quebec
You do know Canada didn't "allow" the second independence referendum, it was held at a time the Quebecois chose for it to be held. So why do you continue to lie about this?
Do you not care for having integrity?
You clearly don't because you are an unquestioning fanboy of Boris Johnson, the most dishonest person to hold the position of PM in several generations.
Tangential to this ... has the reputation of any major politician plummeted faster, when out of office, than David Cameron ? I think he may be even worse than Boris Johnson, who as you correctly point out is an actual fraud.
The Labour bounce seems to be at the expense of the Tories. Perhaps to be expected with the new leader but given the national pllling recently it makes me wonder how much worse is Labour doing in England and Wales?
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
No.
I don't want to go to an outdoor pub. I want to visit my grandparents and they aren't healthy enough to be spending time outdoors in the cold. They've had both vaccines but it will still be illegal to visit them in their living room before 17 May. 😠
I did say "bend a few (unpoliced) rules".
Visiting others indoors isn't "bending the rules" it is "breaking the law".
If the only solution is to break the law, then the law is an ass.
You wouldn't break the speed limits to avoid being late for something important?
On my own? Yes.
With my wife and children in the car? No.
In which case you believe it ok to risk other peoples' children then.
We all make our own decisions.
I wouldn't speed by a school, and I don't speed if its raining, but if I deem conditions are right I could do 80 to 90 on the motorway.
Everyone in the third lane does over 80 on a motorway. It's the ambient speed - custom and practice. Same goes with visiting grandparents as far as I'm concerned!
For those cars whose speedo in the third lane reads 80, they are probably doing about 72.
I go by the sat nav. In both my cars going along at 82/83 means 80 assuming sat nav is more correct than the speedo.
Sharing a sense of despair and powerlessness this morning with Maffew, Leon, alex, Mortimer, Black Rock and others (you know who you are) ... "we few, we happy few, we band of brothers" ... maybe, just maybe a small resistance movement is beginning to stir. My sense of despair comes from a frustration that the government knows something I don't.
As a rule of thumb, never believe what a politician says, watch what they do. Despite the overwhelming evidence in the public domain that COVID is now a miniscule risk, they are constantly moving the goalposts - why is that? What sane person would want this nightmare to continue a moment longer than absolutely necessary?
There are 3 possibilities:
1. The vaccine is not nearly as effective as we are led to believe. The plummeting infections, hospitalizations and death rates are actually a result of the lockdown. Therefore, different ongoing restrictions need to be dreamt up for the foreseeable ... 2. The vaccine is extremely effective but the government has terrified the population to such an extent that zero-covid is the de-facto end state. Therefore, different ongoing restrictions need to be dreamt up for the foreseeable ... 3. The vaccine is extremely effective and the government sees it as a means to introduce an ID card by the back door (to control movement, behaviour, access to services, etc). Therefore, different ongoing restrictions need to be dreamt up for the foreseeable ...
It it's #1, we're screwed. If it's #3, we're screwed (if you enjoy freedom and the British way of life).
I'm clinging to the hope that it's #2 because in that case there is a chance, however slim, that our tiny minority of resistance fighters will grow to the point the government will get the message that enough is enough - we've beaten this thing down to the level of seasonal flu; let's live with it. Change the messaging. Get back to normal (not "more normal" or "something approaching normal" ... just "normal").
My view is we should lift all restrictions now - immediately. I very reluctantly accept that we will have to wait until June 21st for that (but my Tory vote is lost forever - these people are not conservatives). I fear that after June 21st there will still be restrictions in place.
Covid is not, yet, a minuscule risk. Absolutely not. Smaller, shrinking, but not minuscule.
Sorry but it is, deaths are below average now. We have negative excess deaths.
There is no excuse not to be at Stage 3 already, July 2020 restrictions. The vulnerable have been vaccinated, deaths are below average, R has collapsed and we are past the point of share of people vaccinated that Israel was at when they lifted restrictions.
I'm as frustrated as anyone, but the logic that right now, with current restrictions, we have negative excess deaths means that we can get rid of all restrictions right now doesn't hold up. Last August, we had negative excess deaths. The unlocking we did was cautious and limited and still saw an increase. Should we drop all restrictions right now, we won't be at negative excess deaths for long.
Those in Phase 2 of vaccination are at between 1%-2% chance of hospitalisation when sick. There are about 20 million of them yet uninfected and unvaccinated. That's 200,000-400,000 hospitalisations waiting for us; we can't sustain them all in a short period of time. Should we overwhelm the NHS, the death rate becomes significant, even in these.
We have fully vaccinated about 8% of the country, of whom about half have full protection. We've given a single dose to far more, but that doesn't have the full effect (it does more than enough to be very much worth giving it). We've got 300,000-600,000 hospitalisations waiting for us in the 1-dose-vaccinated if we let it rip now.
So, overall, 500,000-1,000,000 hospitalisations if we let it rip fully right now.
Asset to the site.
So are all the eloquent paeans to liberty but they are much easier to do and we are knee deep.
Agree re: Andy. Big fan. Interesting that we are knee-deep - wasn't the case until recently.
Interesting study on several levels. The rapid antigen test LFDs are evidently pretty effective. If we'd had mass use of them last year (coupled with decent incentives for isolating if testing positive), we could have dispensed with most of the contact tracing apparatus and have achieved better control of the pandemic.
SARS-CoV-2 infectivity by viral load, S gene variants and demographic factors and the utility of lateral flow devices to prevent transmission https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.31.21254687v1 ...How SARS-CoV-2 infectivity varies with viral load is incompletely understood. Whether rapid point-of-care antigen lateral flow devices (LFDs) detect most potential transmission sources despite imperfect sensitivity is unknown. Methods: We combined SARS-CoV-2 testing and contact tracing data from England between 01-September-2020 and 28-February-2021. We used multivariable logistic regression to investigate relationships between PCR-confirmed infection in contacts of community-diagnosed cases and index case viral load, S gene target failure (proxy for B.1.1.7 infection), demographics, SARS-CoV-2 incidence, social deprivation, and contact event type. We used LFD performance to simulate the proportion of cases with a PCR-positive contact expected to be detected using one of four LFDs. Results: 231,498/2,474,066 (9%) contacts of 1,064,004 index cases tested PCR-positive. PCR-positive results in contacts independently increased with higher case viral loads (lower Ct values) e.g., 11.7%(95%CI 11.5-12.0%) at Ct=15 and 4.5%(4.4-4.6%) at Ct=30. B.1.1.7 infection increased PCR-positive results by ~50%, (e.g. 1.55-fold, 95%CI 1.49-1.61, at Ct=20). PCR-positive results were most common in household contacts (at Ct=20.1, 8.7%[95%CI 8.6-8.9%]), followed by household visitors (7.1%[6.8-7.3%]), contacts at events/activities (5.2%[4.9-5.4%]), work/education (4.6%[4.4-4.8%]), and least common after outdoor contact (2.9%[2.3-3.8%]). Contacts of children were the least likely to test positive, particularly following contact outdoors or at work/education. The most and least sensitive LFDs would detect 89.5%(89.4-89.6%) and 83.0%(82.8-83.1%) of cases with PCR-positive contacts respectively. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 infectivity varies by case viral load, contact event type, and age. Those with high viral loads are the most infectious. B.1.1.7 increased transmission by ~50%. The best performing LFDs detect most infectious cases...
That does put into perspective just how transient the yes vote is.
They're quoting 52% Yes, 48% No [haven't I seen those figures somewhere else?], which I wouldn't have thought was anywhere near enough for the SNP to risk a referendum.
But I think you are right about the transience of the Yes vote (or rather, the Yes opinion-poll figure). It does seem to vary according to very short-term factors which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with independence. It wouldn't be surprising if respondents used it as a proxy to express dissatisfaction with the UK government, or conversely with the SNP government.
Why wouldn't 52% Yes be enough to risk a referendum. Quite frankly 48% from their perspective ought to be enough to risk it.
As the IRA used to say, they need to get lucky once. Not many expected the Brexit referendum to be lost by the Westminster government but it was and we're out now.
If they lose a second referendum that might be the end of the matter (like in Canada), or they can regather and find a new grievance to push and then push for a third - until the Scottish voters decide enough is enough.
Even more reason to refuse a legal indyref2, as Boris will do, as even if Unionists narrowly win it the SNP will push for a third referendum shortly after.
Canada only resolved the matter by allowing Quebec's second independence referendum in 1980 a full 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, then even though No only narrowly won with 51% the matter was resolved with devomax for Quebec
You do know Canada didn't "allow" the second independence referendum, it was held at a time the Quebecois chose for it to be held. So why do you continue to lie about this?
Do you not care for having integrity?
It was still the Canadian government's decision, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that Quebec independence would have been illegal without the approval of the Federal government of Canada.
Spain's government since of course has refused to allow the Catalan nationalist majority government even 1 legal independence referendum, as Tories we should follow the example of our sister party the Popular Party when they were in government and say a firm No to the Nationalists. 2014 was a once in a generation vote
That is a lie and you know it. It was not the Canadian government's decision to "allow" 15 years for the date.
The Supreme Court of Canada did not choose 15 years for the date. In fact the Supreme Court ruling came after the referendum and you know that, so stop lying.
The only people who chose the date were the Quebecois voters and the Quebecois government. The federal government had no say in it and you know that.
Wrong, the Supreme Court of Canada stated after the referendum that a unilateral secession without the approval of the Federal Government of Canada would have been illegal.
Spain's government has of course refused any legal independence referendum by the Catalan nationalist government.
For now we Tories must follow the example of our conservative cousins in the Popular Party in Spain and refuse a legal independence referendum, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and there must be no concessions to the SNP and Salmond on that.
Pro independence liberals such as you can be ignored
You can not be this stupid.
Them speaking "after the referendum" means they didn't choose the fifteen year date. 🤦♂️
A unilateral secession without the approval of Westminster would be illegal too, that's no different to what the Supreme Court ruled. But the 15 year date was the choice of the Quebecois, it was not what was "allowed". If the Scots choose differently, then they choose differently. That is democracy.
No, you're both wrong. HYUFD is wrong to say that Ottawa allowed the Quebecois referendums, the Canadian constitution expressly gave Quebec the power to call their own - as you say
But you are wrong to suggest Scotland can just call a vote when it wants, it cannot. You may think the Scots have a moral right to call a vote if Nats win a majority in Holyrood, but that's a different matter. The overriding law is the Scotland Act which reserves the power to permit a referendum to Westminster
The Nats, if they win, are free to challenge this in the SCOTUK if they disagree, they will lose
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
No.
I don't want to go to an outdoor pub. I want to visit my grandparents and they aren't healthy enough to be spending time outdoors in the cold. They've had both vaccines but it will still be illegal to visit them in their living room before 17 May. 😠
I did say "bend a few (unpoliced) rules".
Visiting others indoors isn't "bending the rules" it is "breaking the law".
If the only solution is to break the law, then the law is an ass.
You wouldn't break the speed limits to avoid being late for something important?
On my own? Yes.
With my wife and children in the car? No.
In which case you believe it ok to risk other peoples' children then.
We all make our own decisions.
I wouldn't speed by a school, and I don't speed if its raining, but if I deem conditions are right I could do 80 to 90 on the motorway.
Everyone in the third lane does over 80 on a motorway. It's the ambient speed - custom and practice. Same goes with visiting grandparents as far as I'm concerned!
For those cars whose speedo in the third lane reads 80, they are probably doing about 72.
I go by the sat nav. In both my cars going along at 82/83 means 80 assuming sat nav is more correct than the speedo.
Yes, I found the same in both my previous Golf and current Corolla. At 80 I find that Google Maps says 75. Clearly there is a good margin for error in calibrating the speedo!
Sharing a sense of despair and powerlessness this morning with Maffew, Leon, alex, Mortimer, Black Rock and others (you know who you are) ... "we few, we happy few, we band of brothers" ... maybe, just maybe a small resistance movement is beginning to stir. My sense of despair comes from a frustration that the government knows something I don't.
As a rule of thumb, never believe what a politician says, watch what they do. Despite the overwhelming evidence in the public domain that COVID is now a miniscule risk, they are constantly moving the goalposts - why is that? What sane person would want this nightmare to continue a moment longer than absolutely necessary?
There are 3 possibilities:
1. The vaccine is not nearly as effective as we are led to believe. The plummeting infections, hospitalizations and death rates are actually a result of the lockdown. Therefore, different ongoing restrictions need to be dreamt up for the foreseeable ... 2. The vaccine is extremely effective but the government has terrified the population to such an extent that zero-covid is the de-facto end state. Therefore, different ongoing restrictions need to be dreamt up for the foreseeable ... 3. The vaccine is extremely effective and the government sees it as a means to introduce an ID card by the back door (to control movement, behaviour, access to services, etc). Therefore, different ongoing restrictions need to be dreamt up for the foreseeable ...
It it's #1, we're screwed. If it's #3, we're screwed (if you enjoy freedom and the British way of life).
I'm clinging to the hope that it's #2 because in that case there is a chance, however slim, that our tiny minority of resistance fighters will grow to the point the government will get the message that enough is enough - we've beaten this thing down to the level of seasonal flu; let's live with it. Change the messaging. Get back to normal (not "more normal" or "something approaching normal" ... just "normal").
My view is we should lift all restrictions now - immediately. I very reluctantly accept that we will have to wait until June 21st for that (but my Tory vote is lost forever - these people are not conservatives). I fear that after June 21st there will still be restrictions in place.
Covid is not, yet, a minuscule risk. Absolutely not. Smaller, shrinking, but not minuscule.
Sorry but it is, deaths are below average now. We have negative excess deaths.
There is no excuse not to be at Stage 3 already, July 2020 restrictions. The vulnerable have been vaccinated, deaths are below average, R has collapsed and we are past the point of share of people vaccinated that Israel was at when they lifted restrictions.
I'm as frustrated as anyone, but the logic that right now, with current restrictions, we have negative excess deaths means that we can get rid of all restrictions right now doesn't hold up. Last August, we had negative excess deaths. The unlocking we did was cautious and limited and still saw an increase. Should we drop all restrictions right now, we won't be at negative excess deaths for long.
Those in Phase 2 of vaccination are at between 1%-2% chance of hospitalisation when sick. There are about 20 million of them yet uninfected and unvaccinated. That's 200,000-400,000 hospitalisations waiting for us; we can't sustain them all in a short period of time. Should we overwhelm the NHS, the death rate becomes significant, even in these.
We have fully vaccinated about 8% of the country, of whom about half have full protection. We've given a single dose to far more, but that doesn't have the full effect (it does more than enough to be very much worth giving it). We've got 300,000-600,000 hospitalisations waiting for us in the 1-dose-vaccinated if we let it rip now.
So, overall, 500,000-1,000,000 hospitalisations if we let it rip fully right now.
Asset to the site.
So are all the eloquent paeans to liberty but they are much easier to do and we are knee deep.
Agree re: Andy. Big fan. Interesting that we are knee-deep - wasn't the case until recently.
Very true. Outbreak of overt liberty coveting!
For me it was there before - just covert though - scared to post - not now though. I see this as a positive thing overall.
"The BBC will not make programmes aimed specifically at older viewers because their tastes are too varied, the corporation has said. Instead, the over-50s are urged to enjoy shows made for a “general audience”.
So alienate further the only demographic that watch consistently in very large numbers and go for a market that aren't interested in your output.....good job they don't work in the private sector...
No. If the BBC's critics read the linked article, they'd see the BBC is agreeing with Charlie Higson's complaints about the BBC. There is no over-50s demographic. People who grew up during the war, or during post-war austerity, or the birth of rock and roll, or the swinging sixties, or the 1970s with decimalisation, joining the Common Market (what could possibly go wrong?), Thatcherism and punk, have nothing in common except being over 50. Oh, and some of them started out life eating spicy food in sunner climes.
As anyone who has worked with older people will know, they are not all the same. This is what the BBC is saying. This is what Charlie Higson was complaining about. The stereotype that over 50s want to sing along to Vera Lynn over pictures of tanks is absurd. Captain Tom was 100. That's double 50. Almost everyone who'd fought in the war is now dead or Prince Philip.
Or, from the original Telegraph link, what the BBC said was:
“We find that tastes in older age groups vary just as much as those in any other age range - for example, some older viewers prefer quizzes, soaps and lighter programmes whilst others prefer more cultural or factual programmes.
“This being the case, there simply isn’t a typical programme or range of shows that would appeal specifically to older audiences, and that’s why our television channels and radio stations and the information on our website is for a general audience… we are a general broadcaster so by definition our approach has to be general and broad, so there needs to be a degree of compromise.”
Perhaps the BBC might have a greater rate of creating hit shows if it didn't target demographic groups in such a patronising fashion. The starting point should be making amazing TV.
Whilst it's potentially inconvienient news this is a bit hyperbolic, we've 1st dosed ~ 60% of all adults and the virus is in abeyance.
It's not a disaster but it is very bad news
I cannot believe the MHRA is considering this. We've had 7 fatalities from 18m doses. WTAFFFFF
I'm not sure it's going to make a huge difference. Personally I'd rather have Moderna or Novavax than AZ anyway as I don't need to wait a minimum of 12 weeks to be fully immunised with a second dose.
Then why is this member of the JCVI saying it could "threaten the roadmap"?
If they extend unlockdowning, my vague and morose apathy, alleviated by hard work and chat on here, might tip into alcoholic desolation. It really could. Jeez
Dunno, the pie charts used to show the reduction assume we'll be stopping second doses in people already vaccinated once with AZ. Which is a nonsense. That's where the bulk of AZ is going for the next couple of months regardless of any JCVI recommendations.
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
No.
I don't want to go to an outdoor pub. I want to visit my grandparents and they aren't healthy enough to be spending time outdoors in the cold. They've had both vaccines but it will still be illegal to visit them in their living room before 17 May. 😠
I did say "bend a few (unpoliced) rules".
Visiting others indoors isn't "bending the rules" it is "breaking the law".
If the only solution is to break the law, then the law is an ass.
You wouldn't break the speed limits to avoid being late for something important?
On my own? Yes.
With my wife and children in the car? No.
Having set off a bit late you wouldn't drive 35 in a 30 so as to drop your kids to school on time?
Utter sanctimonious bullshit.
Others might but I hardly believe a word you write about your private life. It's all transparent virtue-signalling.
Sorry, Philip, but that's my take. You carry on though. It's all part of PB's rich mosaic.
No I 100% wouldn't . Driving at 35 or 40 in a residential area is much more likely to kill.
When I do the school run there's many other children going to other schools walking along the paths of the road. In between my house and their school is two other schools (a Catholic primary, and a girls senior school) and so there are lots of children on the pavements and walking around in general. It just isn't safe to be doing 35 or 40 in those circumstances. Heck, due to traffic conditions its rarely possible to get above 20 despite the speed limit being 30.
So no speeding on the school run, it does not happen.
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
No.
I don't want to go to an outdoor pub. I want to visit my grandparents and they aren't healthy enough to be spending time outdoors in the cold. They've had both vaccines but it will still be illegal to visit them in their living room before 17 May. 😠
I did say "bend a few (unpoliced) rules".
Visiting others indoors isn't "bending the rules" it is "breaking the law".
If the only solution is to break the law, then the law is an ass.
You wouldn't break the speed limits to avoid being late for something important?
On my own? Yes.
With my wife and children in the car? No.
In which case you believe it ok to risk other peoples' children then.
We all make our own decisions.
I wouldn't speed by a school, and I don't speed if its raining, but if I deem conditions are right I could do 80 to 90 on the motorway.
Everyone in the third lane does over 80 on a motorway. It's the ambient speed - custom and practice. Same goes with visiting grandparents as far as I'm concerned!
For those cars whose speedo in the third lane reads 80, they are probably doing about 72.
I go by the sat nav. In both my cars going along at 82/83 means 80 assuming sat nav is more correct than the speedo.
Satnav should be fairly accurate. If speedo is reporting 82mph your actual speed is between 69mph-82mph, assuming your speedo is legal.
I wonder if Alba are going to totally crater. Salmond looks so weird and creepy now (and I have a fair tolerance for oversexed alpha males in middle age). Add to that his bizarre remarks about the Skripal poisoning and Putin, and his weird declarations, avowals and oaths, like he is Moses on top of Arthur's Seat.
It's not a pleasant or sensible prospect.
He may get close to zero MSPs while still fracturing the Indy vote. He might end up humiliated and even angrier. lol
We are assuming that the Indy supermajority is Salmond's overriding aim. I am sure he wants that, but I think the crucial thing is getting him back into Holyrood, where he will continue dismantling Sturgeon - a process that he has wisely suspended during this election campaign. If WM votes to give MSP's parliamentary privilege as they have in WM, he'll be able to reveal whatever evidence he wants to.
I've never thought for one moment that an Indy supermajority is Salmond's overriding aim. He fairly clearly comes to bury Caesar, not to praise her.
Will be interesting to see how it plays out. It feels to me that "we've got a cunning plan to game the list system" only plays well amongst political obsessives - it's too clever by half and essentially dodgy by its own admission. That's reinforced by its defectors being fringe characters brought together by little more than being out of favour with the SNP leadership... and not without some reason.
It does feel as if a better approach may have been open about coming to bury Sturgeon, or at least put a rocket up the establishment (and the SNP are very much that now). There are plenty of legitimate policy criticisms of the Scottish Government under current management, and some doubt over Sturgeon's stomach for the fight on full independence. It probably would have come across as more honest.
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
No.
I don't want to go to an outdoor pub. I want to visit my grandparents and they aren't healthy enough to be spending time outdoors in the cold. They've had both vaccines but it will still be illegal to visit them in their living room before 17 May. 😠
I did say "bend a few (unpoliced) rules".
Visiting others indoors isn't "bending the rules" it is "breaking the law".
If the only solution is to break the law, then the law is an ass.
You wouldn't break the speed limits to avoid being late for something important?
On my own? Yes.
With my wife and children in the car? No.
Having set off a bit late you wouldn't drive 35 in a 30 so as to drop your kids to school on time?
Utter sanctimonious bullshit.
Others might but I hardly believe a word you write about your private life. It's all transparent virtue-signalling.
Sorry, Philip, but that's my take. You carry on though. It's all part of PB's rich mosaic.
Bad example. Do you drive? I would think nothing of driving at 80-90 and higher on the motorway. I would definitely not speed in an urban area, by a school or not. There's a big difference.
I think that it became worse when a defined time till the end of this was created.
A lot of people mentioned that June 21st felt a long, long way away....
I disagree actually. Having a defined timetable makes things easier for me. It means there's an end in sight and everything becomes more achievable. What I've been struggling with recently is all the suggestions that the timetable will be delayed or that ending legal restrictions doesn't actually mean ending legal restrictions.
Yep ... the problem with politicians is that once they've imposed some new restriction it's virtually impossible to get rid of it completely. The examples are legion; it's their standard MO.
We need to hold them to account on this one ... anything less than a total rescinding of all COVID restrictions on June 21st is completely unacceptable. If they want to keep any restrictions in place or add new ones, then have them make a new case based on the evidence and get it through parliament.
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
Yes, next week is a biggee. I have skiing booked at Snowdome and three pub bookings. I'm feeling grumpy like everyone else this morning but I don't count as I've been grumpy for months.
Actually "grumpy" is not the word. "Scared and trapped" is closer. Waking up in a panic is a regular theme.
Let's see how things feel a week from now. For me the opening ups next Monday, whilst far from the end of the affair, are a really meaningful step.
I think that it became worse when a defined time till the end of this was created.
A lot of people mentioned that June 21st felt a long, long way away....
Yes. Counter-intuitive but perhaps something in that.
I think that it became worse when a defined time till the end of this was created.
A lot of people mentioned that June 21st felt a long, long way away....
I disagree actually. Having a defined timetable makes things easier for me. It means there's an end in sight and everything becomes more achievable. What I've been struggling with recently is all the suggestions that the timetable will be delayed or that ending legal restrictions doesn't actually mean ending legal restrictions.
Yep ... the problem with politicians is that once they've imposed some new restriction it's virtually impossible to get rid of it completely. The examples are legion; it's their standard MO.
We need to hold them to account on this one ... anything less than a total rescinding of all COVID restrictions on June 21st is completely unacceptable. If they want to keep any restrictions in place or add new ones, then have them make a new case based on the evidence and get it through parliament.
Not just restrictions, taxes.....how many taxes were "temporary" to just help tackle a current issue and they never go away....same with benefits.
Whilst it's potentially inconvienient news this is a bit hyperbolic, we've 1st dosed ~ 60% of all adults and the virus is in abeyance.
It's not a disaster but it is very bad news
I cannot believe the MHRA is considering this. We've had 7 fatalities from 18m doses. WTAFFFFF
I'm not sure it's going to make a huge difference. Personally I'd rather have Moderna or Novavax than AZ anyway as I don't need to wait a minimum of 12 weeks to be fully immunised with a second dose.
Then why is this member of the JCVI saying it could "threaten the roadmap"?
If they extend unlockdowning, my vague and morose apathy, alleviated by hard work and chat on here, might tip into alcoholic desolation. It really could. Jeez
Dunno, the pie charts used to show the reduction assume we'll be stopping second doses in people already vaccinated once with AZ. Which is a nonsense. That's where the bulk of AZ is going for the next couple of months regardless of any JCVI recommendations.
IF AZN is suspended for under 50s then it is likely that Stage 4 release (no legal restrictions) will not happen at 21 June as scheduled. However this has looked progressively unlikely for the last few weeks in any case, notwithstanding the apparently improving data.
Stage 3 (indoor pubs and restaurants etc) will still happen on 17 May.
That does put into perspective just how transient the yes vote is.
They're quoting 52% Yes, 48% No [haven't I seen those figures somewhere else?], which I wouldn't have thought was anywhere near enough for the SNP to risk a referendum.
But I think you are right about the transience of the Yes vote (or rather, the Yes opinion-poll figure). It does seem to vary according to very short-term factors which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with independence. It wouldn't be surprising if respondents used it as a proxy to express dissatisfaction with the UK government, or conversely with the SNP government.
Why wouldn't 52% Yes be enough to risk a referendum. Quite frankly 48% from their perspective ought to be enough to risk it.
As the IRA used to say, they need to get lucky once. Not many expected the Brexit referendum to be lost by the Westminster government but it was and we're out now.
If they lose a second referendum that might be the end of the matter (like in Canada), or they can regather and find a new grievance to push and then push for a third - until the Scottish voters decide enough is enough.
Even more reason to refuse a legal indyref2, as Boris will do, as even if Unionists narrowly win it the SNP will push for a third referendum shortly after.
Canada only resolved the matter by allowing Quebec's second independence referendum in 1980 a full 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, then even though No only narrowly won with 51% the matter was resolved with devomax for Quebec
You do know Canada didn't "allow" the second independence referendum, it was held at a time the Quebecois chose for it to be held. So why do you continue to lie about this?
Do you not care for having integrity?
It was still the Canadian government's decision, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that Quebec independence would have been illegal without the approval of the Federal government of Canada.
Spain's government since of course has refused to allow the Catalan nationalist majority government even 1 legal independence referendum, as Tories we should follow the example of our sister party the Popular Party when they were in government and say a firm No to the Nationalists. 2014 was a once in a generation vote
That is a lie and you know it. It was not the Canadian government's decision to "allow" 15 years for the date.
The Supreme Court of Canada did not choose 15 years for the date. In fact the Supreme Court ruling came after the referendum and you know that, so stop lying.
The only people who chose the date were the Quebecois voters and the Quebecois government. The federal government had no say in it and you know that.
Wrong, the Supreme Court of Canada stated after the referendum that a unilateral secession without the approval of the Federal Government of Canada would have been illegal.
Spain's government has of course refused any legal independence referendum by the Catalan nationalist government.
For now we Tories must follow the example of our conservative cousins in the Popular Party in Spain and refuse a legal independence referendum, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and there must be no concessions to the SNP and Salmond on that.
Pro independence liberals such as you can be ignored
You can not be this stupid.
Them speaking "after the referendum" means they didn't choose the fifteen year date. 🤦♂️
A unilateral secession without the approval of Westminster would be illegal too, that's no different to what the Supreme Court ruled. But the 15 year date was the choice of the Quebecois, it was not what was "allowed". If the Scots choose differently, then they choose differently. That is democracy.
No, you're both wrong. HYUFD is wrong to say that Ottawa allowed the Quebecois referendums, the Canadian constitution expressly gave Quebec the power to call their own - as you say
But you are wrong to suggest Scotland can just call a vote when it wants, it cannot. You may think the Scots have a moral right to call a vote if Nats win a majority in Holyrood, but that's a different matter. The overriding law is the Scotland Act which reserves the power to permit a referendum to Westminster
The Nats, if they win, are free to challenge this in the SCOTUK if they disagree, they will lose
I never said Scotland can just call a vote when it wants. I said it should be able to and we should respect democracy, but that Canada didn't "allow" the Quebecois referendum was the point. So since you agreed with that, you agree with me.
As for whether the law allows a second referendum, that isn't settled. Some say it does, some say it doesn't. I don't know, I think they should be allowed one, but I don't know if they are. As you say it could end up in SCOTUK.
Comedy Dave Keating has a point, here, and this is further proof
He reckons the EU chatterati - pundits, hacks, politicians - all read far too much British media and social media, because English is the common language, and because the British, naturally, use it best: most entertainingly and pointedly. So British talking points on Twitter become EU talking points, and British tabloid headlines antagonise EU leaders and thinkers even though they are aimed at UK leaders and thinkers.
It is extravagantly ironic on many levels. Now we have left we still haunt them, even as they loom over us
We're a bit like Greece in the Roman Empire, though the history is reversed. The Romans were oddly obsessed with the Greeks
You leavers also seem more obsessed with the EU than when you were in.
Witness yesterday's breathless analysis of the seating arrangements at the Erdogan meeting.
Eurogoon types are far more interested in that. Here's Comical Dave's thread about it.
Apparently the problem is that the "Protocol Department weren't in the delegation". It's like the bloody Delhi Durbar. Surprising UVDL hasn't demanded to ride on an elephant.
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
No.
I don't want to go to an outdoor pub. I want to visit my grandparents and they aren't healthy enough to be spending time outdoors in the cold. They've had both vaccines but it will still be illegal to visit them in their living room before 17 May. 😠
I did say "bend a few (unpoliced) rules".
Visiting others indoors isn't "bending the rules" it is "breaking the law".
If the only solution is to break the law, then the law is an ass.
You wouldn't break the speed limits to avoid being late for something important?
On my own? Yes.
With my wife and children in the car? No.
Having set off a bit late you wouldn't drive 35 in a 30 so as to drop your kids to school on time?
Utter sanctimonious bullshit.
Others might but I hardly believe a word you write about your private life. It's all transparent virtue-signalling.
Sorry, Philip, but that's my take. You carry on though. It's all part of PB's rich mosaic.
Bad example. Do you drive? I would think nothing of driving at 80-90 and higher on the motorway. I would definitely not speed in an urban area, by a school or not. There's a big difference.
Thank you Topping. Yes, motorway speeding is far safer than residential speeding.
Especially when kids are walking along the road. I can not think of a worse example of when speeding would be appropriate than the school run.
That does put into perspective just how transient the yes vote is.
They're quoting 52% Yes, 48% No [haven't I seen those figures somewhere else?], which I wouldn't have thought was anywhere near enough for the SNP to risk a referendum.
But I think you are right about the transience of the Yes vote (or rather, the Yes opinion-poll figure). It does seem to vary according to very short-term factors which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with independence. It wouldn't be surprising if respondents used it as a proxy to express dissatisfaction with the UK government, or conversely with the SNP government.
Why wouldn't 52% Yes be enough to risk a referendum. Quite frankly 48% from their perspective ought to be enough to risk it.
As the IRA used to say, they need to get lucky once. Not many expected the Brexit referendum to be lost by the Westminster government but it was and we're out now.
If they lose a second referendum that might be the end of the matter (like in Canada), or they can regather and find a new grievance to push and then push for a third - until the Scottish voters decide enough is enough.
Even more reason to refuse a legal indyref2, as Boris will do, as even if Unionists narrowly win it the SNP will push for a third referendum shortly after.
Canada only resolved the matter by allowing Quebec's second independence referendum in 1980 a full 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, then even though No only narrowly won with 51% the matter was resolved with devomax for Quebec
You do know Canada didn't "allow" the second independence referendum, it was held at a time the Quebecois chose for it to be held. So why do you continue to lie about this?
Do you not care for having integrity?
It was still the Canadian government's decision, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that Quebec independence would have been illegal without the approval of the Federal government of Canada.
Spain's government since of course has refused to allow the Catalan nationalist majority government even 1 legal independence referendum, as Tories we should follow the example of our sister party the Popular Party when they were in government and say a firm No to the Nationalists. 2014 was a once in a generation vote
That is a lie and you know it. It was not the Canadian government's decision to "allow" 15 years for the date.
The Supreme Court of Canada did not choose 15 years for the date. In fact the Supreme Court ruling came after the referendum and you know that, so stop lying.
The only people who chose the date were the Quebecois voters and the Quebecois government. The federal government had no say in it and you know that.
Wrong, the Supreme Court of Canada stated after the referendum that a unilateral secession without the approval of the Federal Government of Canada would have been illegal.
Spain's government has of course refused any legal independence referendum by the Catalan nationalist government.
For now we Tories must follow the example of our conservative cousins in the Popular Party in Spain and refuse a legal independence referendum, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and there must be no concessions to the SNP and Salmond on that.
Pro independence liberals such as you can be ignored
You can not be this stupid.
Them speaking "after the referendum" means they didn't choose the fifteen year date. 🤦♂️
A unilateral secession without the approval of Westminster would be illegal too, that's no different to what the Supreme Court ruled. But the 15 year date was the choice of the Quebecois, it was not what was "allowed". If the Scots choose differently, then they choose differently. That is democracy.
No, you're both wrong. HYUFD is wrong to say that Ottawa allowed the Quebecois referendums, the Canadian constitution expressly gave Quebec the power to call their own - as you say
But you are wrong to suggest Scotland can just call a vote when it wants, it cannot. You may think the Scots have a moral right to call a vote if Nats win a majority in Holyrood, but that's a different matter. The overriding law is the Scotland Act which reserves the power to permit a referendum to Westminster
The Nats, if they win, are free to challenge this in the SCOTUK if they disagree, they will lose
I never said Scotland can just call a vote when it wants. I said it should be able to and we should respect democracy, but that Canada didn't "allow" the Quebecois referendum was the point. So since you agreed with that, you agree with me.
As for whether the law allows a second referendum, that isn't settled. Some say it does, some say it doesn't. I don't know, I think they should be allowed one, but I don't know if they are. As you say it could end up in SCOTUK.
A few eccentric lawyers say a Nat government could maybe win a case in SCOTUK, but the large majority of experts say they would lose. And they surely would. The Scotland Act is quite explicit
Comedy Dave Keating has a point, here, and this is further proof
He reckons the EU chatterati - pundits, hacks, politicians - all read far too much British media and social media, because English is the common language, and because the British, naturally, use it best: most entertainingly and pointedly. So British talking points on Twitter become EU talking points, and British tabloid headlines antagonise EU leaders and thinkers even though they are aimed at UK leaders and thinkers.
It is extravagantly ironic on many levels. Now we have left we still haunt them, even as they loom over us
We're a bit like Greece in the Roman Empire, though the history is reversed. The Romans were oddly obsessed with the Greeks
You leavers also seem more obsessed with the EU than when you were in.
Witness yesterday's breathless analysis of the seating arrangements at the Erdogan meeting.
Eurogoon types are far more interested in that. Here's Comical Dave's thread about it.
Apparently the problem is that the "Protocol Department weren't in the delegation". It's like the bloody Delhi Durbar. Surprising UVDL hasn't demanded to ride on an elephant.
I'm no fan of this government (a gross understatement), but I don't share the doom and gloom of so many on here.
The government set out a roadmap with which most broadly agreed, in the context of a horrendous death and illness toll in January/February. It's now April. Yes, it was a cautious roadmap - understandable given the history of the virus and some uncertainty about the efficacy of vaccines. That uncertainty has diminished massively, but not completely. As far as I can tell, the government is sticking to the roadmap and restrictions will be eased next week, and more significantly on May 17th and then in June. If the government backtracks on the roadmap without good reason I'll join the complainants, but there's no sign of that yet.
Meanwhile, while the restrictions are a complete pain, they are increasingly less arduous, especially as people interpret them more sensibly. We've started having visitors to the house, because we know infections locally are now very low. The police have not knocked on our door, nor will they. I leave the house several times a day. Next Monday, my daughter has booked a table at a beachfront bar from 2pm - 8pm; we shall visit in shifts of six.
I just wonder if a bit of patience would be wise. We should man the barricades if/when it is clear that conspiracies about extending lockdown and enforcing ID cards are imminent, but not while they are still theoretical risks that I don't actually think will happen.
Yes, I'm broadly with you. I think the problem for me is that I don't trust the government, particularly given its predilection for following lumpen opinion over science and principle. Johnson want to be liked, and I don't think that's doing us any favours. If the road map is adhered to (inc international travel 17 May (in conjunction with traffic light system) ) then I'll heave a huge sigh of relief.
My view is almost the same but slightly nuanced re: Boris. I think Boris is a metro liberal at heart and his instincts are towards liberty. The same cannot be said, sadly, for many others in his party –the Patels and the rump Red Wallers, who love a bit of authoritarian lock'em and flog'em. The Tory version of the Sandy Rentool Tendency if you will.
I reflect northern working class opinion.
North London handwringers should take note.
By North London hand wringers, presumably you mean "people who live in north London (like Anabobazina) who have a different worldview to me?"
He does. And it includes me too. In spades it does. But Sandy is a Red Wall voice and we don't have that many.
"World’s billionaires have seen their combined wealth soar by $5.1 trillion to $13.1 trillion Forbes reveals as the number of super-rich making the list soars by 660 to 2,755
The ranks of the ultra-wealthy have expanded even in a year when the coronavirus pandemic upended the global economy This year's billionaires are worth a combined $13.1 trillion, up from $8 trillion last year - as the soaring stock market has helped boost investment income Bezos had $177B, cementing his spot as the wealthiest billionaire on the list Tesla CEO Elon Musk jumped into second spot on with $155B, up from 31st The list saw 493 newcomers, including Kim Kardashian"
Yet too many are opposed to an ultra wealth tax (I am talking net assets of £50m+ here). How many trillion would it take for that tiny group to own to change minds on what a fair tax would be?
My opposition to an ultra-wealth tax isn't because I support the current unequal distribution of wealth. I'm opposed on the grounds that it is likely to be counter productive, and the ultra-wealthy will just go elsewhere. The ultra-wealthy didn't get ultra-wealthy by not caring too much about money. If it's going to cost them a chunk of their wealth to reside in the UK, they will live somewhere where this doesn't apply. We will be more equal, as a result, because the ultra-wealthy will no longer be here. But the poor will be no richer, and the exchequer will be considerably poorer.
That is fair enough but I think that can be overcome, particularly if there is a consensus amongst leading Western nations. Even a majority of Americans support a tax on the super elite so it should be do-able. If the billionaires want to take their chances in Russia or China so be it (and they will essentially be paying a form of wealth tax there as well).
Yep. An idea whose time is fast coming. TINA.
I can't see the USA ever signing up to it. They are ideologically opposed in principle as a society, whatever opinion polls say. Freedom to become massively rich and not have it pilfered by government is a bit like freedom to own a gun. They are perpetually worried by the ratchet effect and evidence around the world supports this.
Since other people have been sharing what is worrying them, I hope people don't mind if I do the same.
I haven't seen my grandparents in a year and I'm absolutely terrified that I might not ever see them again. I'm lucky enough to still have all my grandparents, my wife has lost all of hers, so I know full well that old people don't live forever. They've been vaccinated but its still illegal to see them until May - there's no guarantee they'll make it until May, I don't want to say it but something could happen at any time and it scares me. I haven't seen any of them since last February and in last couple of decades since returning to live in the UK I'd never gone more than a few weeks without visitng them.
But we won't go to visit them until its legal, my wife won't let me for the same reason that she wouldn't have any drinks at all while pregnant - not expecting anything to go wrong if being sensible, but couldn't live with ourselves if something did and we'd broken the rules/guidance even if it was coincidental. But still . . . its heartbreaking to not know them and to not know if we ever will again, and to lose valuable time of my kids getting to know their great grandparents while they're still with us.
Banning families by law from meeting up indoors while there's no excess deaths is absolutely inhumane and its making me quite emotional sorry. I can't support this, its wrong, wrong, wrong.
But I don't know what to do, this is never something we should have ever had to face.
Necessary visits to people in need has always been allowed AFAIK. And who cares if it isn't. I'd go and I think your wife is wrong.
Philip, the whole bloody country was breaking the law this weekend, me included. No need to be a martyr.
Not up to him, if his wife isn't comfortable breaking the rules.
It’s a sign of how warped our society has become in just one year that you can say this.
The decision rests with Philip and his grandparents, no one else.
It’s a rare man who will ignore his wife’s heartfelt objections!
Whilst it's potentially inconvienient news this is a bit hyperbolic, we've 1st dosed ~ 60% of all adults and the virus is in abeyance.
It's not a disaster but it is very bad news
I cannot believe the MHRA is considering this. We've had 7 fatalities from 18m doses. WTAFFFFF
Suspending its use for under 40s might be a good compromise. Another avenue is cutting for females in G12 & 11 - the clots are overwhemingly in women.
My guess is that, or something similar, is what they will do.
The decision is about balancing risk. If there is a vaccine effect, the risk is significantly greater for women under the age of 50 - and the risk from Covid, of course, is lower in women, and falls rapidly for younger age groups.
Conversely, I (male and over 50) am not in the least worried about getting a second shot of AZN, and there is almost no reason for me to be so.
The fall in support for the SNP could be due to SNP voters realising that their list vote is wasted in many areas. It would be very interesting to see a regional breakdown.
That does put into perspective just how transient the yes vote is.
They're quoting 52% Yes, 48% No [haven't I seen those figures somewhere else?], which I wouldn't have thought was anywhere near enough for the SNP to risk a referendum.
But I think you are right about the transience of the Yes vote (or rather, the Yes opinion-poll figure). It does seem to vary according to very short-term factors which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with independence. It wouldn't be surprising if respondents used it as a proxy to express dissatisfaction with the UK government, or conversely with the SNP government.
Why wouldn't 52% Yes be enough to risk a referendum. Quite frankly 48% from their perspective ought to be enough to risk it.
As the IRA used to say, they need to get lucky once. Not many expected the Brexit referendum to be lost by the Westminster government but it was and we're out now.
If they lose a second referendum that might be the end of the matter (like in Canada), or they can regather and find a new grievance to push and then push for a third - until the Scottish voters decide enough is enough.
Even more reason to refuse a legal indyref2, as Boris will do, as even if Unionists narrowly win it the SNP will push for a third referendum shortly after.
Canada only resolved the matter by allowing Quebec's second independence referendum in 1980 a full 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, then even though No only narrowly won with 51% the matter was resolved with devomax for Quebec
You do know Canada didn't "allow" the second independence referendum, it was held at a time the Quebecois chose for it to be held. So why do you continue to lie about this?
Do you not care for having integrity?
It was still the Canadian government's decision, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that Quebec independence would have been illegal without the approval of the Federal government of Canada.
Spain's government since of course has refused to allow the Catalan nationalist majority government even 1 legal independence referendum, as Tories we should follow the example of our sister party the Popular Party when they were in government and say a firm No to the Nationalists. 2014 was a once in a generation vote
That is a lie and you know it. It was not the Canadian government's decision to "allow" 15 years for the date.
The Supreme Court of Canada did not choose 15 years for the date. In fact the Supreme Court ruling came after the referendum and you know that, so stop lying.
The only people who chose the date were the Quebecois voters and the Quebecois government. The federal government had no say in it and you know that.
Wrong, the Supreme Court of Canada stated after the referendum that a unilateral secession without the approval of the Federal Government of Canada would have been illegal.
Spain's government has of course refused any legal independence referendum by the Catalan nationalist government.
For now we Tories must follow the example of our conservative cousins in the Popular Party in Spain and refuse a legal independence referendum, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and there must be no concessions to the SNP and Salmond on that.
Pro independence liberals such as you can be ignored
You can not be this stupid.
Them speaking "after the referendum" means they didn't choose the fifteen year date. 🤦♂️
A unilateral secession without the approval of Westminster would be illegal too, that's no different to what the Supreme Court ruled. But the 15 year date was the choice of the Quebecois, it was not what was "allowed". If the Scots choose differently, then they choose differently. That is democracy.
No, you're both wrong. HYUFD is wrong to say that Ottawa allowed the Quebecois referendums, the Canadian constitution expressly gave Quebec the power to call their own - as you say
But you are wrong to suggest Scotland can just call a vote when it wants, it cannot. You may think the Scots have a moral right to call a vote if Nats win a majority in Holyrood, but that's a different matter. The overriding law is the Scotland Act which reserves the power to permit a referendum to Westminster
The Nats, if they win, are free to challenge this in the SCOTUK if they disagree, they will lose
I never said Scotland can just call a vote when it wants. I said it should be able to and we should respect democracy, but that Canada didn't "allow" the Quebecois referendum was the point. So since you agreed with that, you agree with me.
As for whether the law allows a second referendum, that isn't settled. Some say it does, some say it doesn't. I don't know, I think they should be allowed one, but I don't know if they are. As you say it could end up in SCOTUK.
A few eccentric lawyers say a Nat government could maybe win a case in SCOTUK, but the large majority of experts say they would lose. And they surely would. The Scotland Act is quite explicit
The Scotland Act is actually pretty vague. Since referendums are non-binding and advisory only (as SCOTUK have already confirmed) then is a referendum changing the law on a reserved matter? Probably not.
Which would put the Scots in the same position as Quebec: able to hold a referendum if they choose to do so, but unable to do anything even with a Yes result without the consent of Ottawa/London.
That does put into perspective just how transient the yes vote is.
They're quoting 52% Yes, 48% No [haven't I seen those figures somewhere else?], which I wouldn't have thought was anywhere near enough for the SNP to risk a referendum.
But I think you are right about the transience of the Yes vote (or rather, the Yes opinion-poll figure). It does seem to vary according to very short-term factors which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with independence. It wouldn't be surprising if respondents used it as a proxy to express dissatisfaction with the UK government, or conversely with the SNP government.
Why wouldn't 52% Yes be enough to risk a referendum. Quite frankly 48% from their perspective ought to be enough to risk it.
As the IRA used to say, they need to get lucky once. Not many expected the Brexit referendum to be lost by the Westminster government but it was and we're out now.
If they lose a second referendum that might be the end of the matter (like in Canada), or they can regather and find a new grievance to push and then push for a third - until the Scottish voters decide enough is enough.
Even more reason to refuse a legal indyref2, as Boris will do, as even if Unionists narrowly win it the SNP will push for a third referendum shortly after.
Canada only resolved the matter by allowing Quebec's second independence referendum in 1980 a full 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, then even though No only narrowly won with 51% the matter was resolved with devomax for Quebec
You do know Canada didn't "allow" the second independence referendum, it was held at a time the Quebecois chose for it to be held. So why do you continue to lie about this?
Do you not care for having integrity?
It was still the Canadian government's decision, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that Quebec independence would have been illegal without the approval of the Federal government of Canada.
Spain's government since of course has refused to allow the Catalan nationalist majority government even 1 legal independence referendum, as Tories we should follow the example of our sister party the Popular Party when they were in government and say a firm No to the Nationalists. 2014 was a once in a generation vote
That is a lie and you know it. It was not the Canadian government's decision to "allow" 15 years for the date.
The Supreme Court of Canada did not choose 15 years for the date. In fact the Supreme Court ruling came after the referendum and you know that, so stop lying.
The only people who chose the date were the Quebecois voters and the Quebecois government. The federal government had no say in it and you know that.
Wrong, the Supreme Court of Canada stated after the referendum that a unilateral secession without the approval of the Federal Government of Canada would have been illegal.
Spain's government has of course refused any legal independence referendum by the Catalan nationalist government.
For now we Tories must follow the example of our conservative cousins in the Popular Party in Spain and refuse a legal independence referendum, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and there must be no concessions to the SNP and Salmond on that.
Pro independence liberals such as you can be ignored
You can not be this stupid.
Them speaking "after the referendum" means they didn't choose the fifteen year date. 🤦♂️
A unilateral secession without the approval of Westminster would be illegal too, that's no different to what the Supreme Court ruled. But the 15 year date was the choice of the Quebecois, it was not what was "allowed". If the Scots choose differently, then they choose differently. That is democracy.
No, you're both wrong. HYUFD is wrong to say that Ottawa allowed the Quebecois referendums, the Canadian constitution expressly gave Quebec the power to call their own - as you say
But you are wrong to suggest Scotland can just call a vote when it wants, it cannot. You may think the Scots have a moral right to call a vote if Nats win a majority in Holyrood, but that's a different matter. The overriding law is the Scotland Act which reserves the power to permit a referendum to Westminster
The Nats, if they win, are free to challenge this in the SCOTUK if they disagree, they will lose
The Canadian PM Chretien however gave the 1995 referendum legitimacy by playing a key role in the No campaign.
That suggested he would respect the result, the Canadian Supreme Court just confirmed he had the power to ignore the result if it was Yes had he wished to do so and a unilateral secession by the Quebec government would have been illegal under the Canadian constitution
Since other people have been sharing what is worrying them, I hope people don't mind if I do the same.
I haven't seen my grandparents in a year and I'm absolutely terrified that I might not ever see them again. I'm lucky enough to still have all my grandparents, my wife has lost all of hers, so I know full well that old people don't live forever. They've been vaccinated but its still illegal to see them until May - there's no guarantee they'll make it until May, I don't want to say it but something could happen at any time and it scares me. I haven't seen any of them since last February and in last couple of decades since returning to live in the UK I'd never gone more than a few weeks without visitng them.
But we won't go to visit them until its legal, my wife won't let me for the same reason that she wouldn't have any drinks at all while pregnant - not expecting anything to go wrong if being sensible, but couldn't live with ourselves if something did and we'd broken the rules/guidance even if it was coincidental. But still . . . its heartbreaking to not know them and to not know if we ever will again, and to lose valuable time of my kids getting to know their great grandparents while they're still with us.
Banning families by law from meeting up indoors while there's no excess deaths is absolutely inhumane and its making me quite emotional sorry. I can't support this, its wrong, wrong, wrong.
But I don't know what to do, this is never something we should have ever had to face.
Necessary visits to people in need has always been allowed AFAIK. And who cares if it isn't. I'd go and I think your wife is wrong.
Philip, the whole bloody country was breaking the law this weekend, me included. No need to be a martyr.
Not up to him, if his wife isn't comfortable breaking the rules.
It’s a sign of how warped our society has become in just one year that you can say this.
The decision rests with Philip and his grandparents, no one else.
It’s a rare man who will ignore his wife’s heartfelt objections!
"The BBC will not make programmes aimed specifically at older viewers because their tastes are too varied, the corporation has said. Instead, the over-50s are urged to enjoy shows made for a “general audience”.
So alienate further the only demographic that watch consistently in very large numbers and go for a market that aren't interested in your output.....good job they don't work in the private sector...
No. If the BBC's critics read the linked article, they'd see the BBC is agreeing with Charlie Higson's complaints about the BBC. There is no over-50s demographic. People who grew up during the war, or during post-war austerity, or the birth of rock and roll, or the swinging sixties, or the 1970s with decimalisation, joining the Common Market (what could possibly go wrong?), Thatcherism and punk, have nothing in common except being over 50. Oh, and some of them started out life eating spicy food in sunner climes.
As anyone who has worked with older people will know, they are not all the same. This is what the BBC is saying. This is what Charlie Higson was complaining about. The stereotype that over 50s want to sing along to Vera Lynn over pictures of tanks is absurd. Captain Tom was 100. That's double 50. Almost everyone who'd fought in the war is now dead or Prince Philip.
Or, from the original Telegraph link, what the BBC said was:
“We find that tastes in older age groups vary just as much as those in any other age range - for example, some older viewers prefer quizzes, soaps and lighter programmes whilst others prefer more cultural or factual programmes.
“This being the case, there simply isn’t a typical programme or range of shows that would appeal specifically to older audiences, and that’s why our television channels and radio stations and the information on our website is for a general audience… we are a general broadcaster so by definition our approach has to be general and broad, so there needs to be a degree of compromise.”
Perhaps the BBC might have a greater rate of creating hit shows if it didn't target demographic groups in such a patronising fashion. The starting point should be making amazing TV.
Yesterday SNP majority was odds against and I got distracted and failed to back them.
I kick myself.
Much like the toasters who jumped from SNP to Alba who are watching their political careers self immolate before their eyes.
Has anyone who jumped from the SNP to Alba actually sacrificed a viable political career? Seems to me that the MPs at least were very much out of favour, for fairly good reason, and with no real way back.
Interesting study on several levels. The rapid antigen test LFDs are evidently pretty effective. If we'd had mass use of them last year (coupled with decent incentives for isolating if testing positive), we could have dispensed with most of the contact tracing apparatus and have achieved better control of the pandemic.
SARS-CoV-2 infectivity by viral load, S gene variants and demographic factors and the utility of lateral flow devices to prevent transmission https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.31.21254687v1 ...How SARS-CoV-2 infectivity varies with viral load is incompletely understood. Whether rapid point-of-care antigen lateral flow devices (LFDs) detect most potential transmission sources despite imperfect sensitivity is unknown. Methods: We combined SARS-CoV-2 testing and contact tracing data from England between 01-September-2020 and 28-February-2021. We used multivariable logistic regression to investigate relationships between PCR-confirmed infection in contacts of community-diagnosed cases and index case viral load, S gene target failure (proxy for B.1.1.7 infection), demographics, SARS-CoV-2 incidence, social deprivation, and contact event type. We used LFD performance to simulate the proportion of cases with a PCR-positive contact expected to be detected using one of four LFDs. Results: 231,498/2,474,066 (9%) contacts of 1,064,004 index cases tested PCR-positive. PCR-positive results in contacts independently increased with higher case viral loads (lower Ct values) e.g., 11.7%(95%CI 11.5-12.0%) at Ct=15 and 4.5%(4.4-4.6%) at Ct=30. B.1.1.7 infection increased PCR-positive results by ~50%, (e.g. 1.55-fold, 95%CI 1.49-1.61, at Ct=20). PCR-positive results were most common in household contacts (at Ct=20.1, 8.7%[95%CI 8.6-8.9%]), followed by household visitors (7.1%[6.8-7.3%]), contacts at events/activities (5.2%[4.9-5.4%]), work/education (4.6%[4.4-4.8%]), and least common after outdoor contact (2.9%[2.3-3.8%]). Contacts of children were the least likely to test positive, particularly following contact outdoors or at work/education. The most and least sensitive LFDs would detect 89.5%(89.4-89.6%) and 83.0%(82.8-83.1%) of cases with PCR-positive contacts respectively. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 infectivity varies by case viral load, contact event type, and age. Those with high viral loads are the most infectious. B.1.1.7 increased transmission by ~50%. The best performing LFDs detect most infectious cases...
Yes, good news. I've been frustrated by the amount of negative press that LFDs have been getting: some of it seems to have been motivated by either not-invented-here syndrome, or from not wanting to administer the tests because of the hassle. In my institution non-experts have disparaged their use in every forum.
It's long been a bugbear of mine that neither the UK nor insofar as I can tell any other country has properly integrated fast-but-imperfect testing into their control. The administrative structures in public health are stacked against it.
If you take that, plus bend a few (unpoliced) rules on meeting and mixing, are you not getting close to normality?
No.
I don't want to go to an outdoor pub. I want to visit my grandparents and they aren't healthy enough to be spending time outdoors in the cold. They've had both vaccines but it will still be illegal to visit them in their living room before 17 May. 😠
I did say "bend a few (unpoliced) rules".
Visiting others indoors isn't "bending the rules" it is "breaking the law".
If the only solution is to break the law, then the law is an ass.
You wouldn't break the speed limits to avoid being late for something important?
On my own? Yes.
With my wife and children in the car? No.
In which case you believe it ok to risk other peoples' children then.
We all make our own decisions.
I wouldn't speed by a school, and I don't speed if its raining, but if I deem conditions are right I could do 80 to 90 on the motorway.
Everyone in the third lane does over 80 on a motorway. It's the ambient speed - custom and practice. Same goes with visiting grandparents as far as I'm concerned!
For those cars whose speedo in the third lane reads 80, they are probably doing about 72.
I go by the sat nav. In both my cars going along at 82/83 means 80 assuming sat nav is more correct than the speedo.
Yes, I found the same in both my previous Golf and current Corolla. At 80 I find that Google Maps says 75. Clearly there is a good margin for error in calibrating the speedo!
It’s illegal (MoT failure) for the speedo to read under the true speed, so the manufacturers allow a fair bit of margin of error. Modern digital displays are considerably more accurate than old analogue devices, as are GPS devices on phones - given a straight road and good signal. Police cars have calibrated speedos, that have to be tested periodically.
That does put into perspective just how transient the yes vote is.
They're quoting 52% Yes, 48% No [haven't I seen those figures somewhere else?], which I wouldn't have thought was anywhere near enough for the SNP to risk a referendum.
But I think you are right about the transience of the Yes vote (or rather, the Yes opinion-poll figure). It does seem to vary according to very short-term factors which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with independence. It wouldn't be surprising if respondents used it as a proxy to express dissatisfaction with the UK government, or conversely with the SNP government.
Why wouldn't 52% Yes be enough to risk a referendum. Quite frankly 48% from their perspective ought to be enough to risk it.
As the IRA used to say, they need to get lucky once. Not many expected the Brexit referendum to be lost by the Westminster government but it was and we're out now.
If they lose a second referendum that might be the end of the matter (like in Canada), or they can regather and find a new grievance to push and then push for a third - until the Scottish voters decide enough is enough.
Even more reason to refuse a legal indyref2, as Boris will do, as even if Unionists narrowly win it the SNP will push for a third referendum shortly after.
Canada only resolved the matter by allowing Quebec's second independence referendum in 1980 a full 15 years after the first in 1980 ie a genuine generation, then even though No only narrowly won with 51% the matter was resolved with devomax for Quebec
You do know Canada didn't "allow" the second independence referendum, it was held at a time the Quebecois chose for it to be held. So why do you continue to lie about this?
Do you not care for having integrity?
It was still the Canadian government's decision, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that Quebec independence would have been illegal without the approval of the Federal government of Canada.
Spain's government since of course has refused to allow the Catalan nationalist majority government even 1 legal independence referendum, as Tories we should follow the example of our sister party the Popular Party when they were in government and say a firm No to the Nationalists. 2014 was a once in a generation vote
That is a lie and you know it. It was not the Canadian government's decision to "allow" 15 years for the date.
The Supreme Court of Canada did not choose 15 years for the date. In fact the Supreme Court ruling came after the referendum and you know that, so stop lying.
The only people who chose the date were the Quebecois voters and the Quebecois government. The federal government had no say in it and you know that.
Wrong, the Supreme Court of Canada stated after the referendum that a unilateral secession without the approval of the Federal Government of Canada would have been illegal.
Spain's government has of course refused any legal independence referendum by the Catalan nationalist government.
For now we Tories must follow the example of our conservative cousins in the Popular Party in Spain and refuse a legal independence referendum, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and there must be no concessions to the SNP and Salmond on that.
Pro independence liberals such as you can be ignored
You can not be this stupid.
Them speaking "after the referendum" means they didn't choose the fifteen year date. 🤦♂️
A unilateral secession without the approval of Westminster would be illegal too, that's no different to what the Supreme Court ruled. But the 15 year date was the choice of the Quebecois, it was not what was "allowed". If the Scots choose differently, then they choose differently. That is democracy.
Even if the Nationalists do hold a referendum, the UK government have made clear they will ignore it, not respect the result and Unionists will boycott it
Whilst it's potentially inconvienient news this is a bit hyperbolic, we've 1st dosed ~ 60% of all adults and the virus is in abeyance.
It's not a disaster but it is very bad news
I cannot believe the MHRA is considering this. We've had 7 fatalities from 18m doses. WTAFFFFF
Suspending its use for under 40s might be a good compromise. Another avenue is cutting for females in G12 & 11 - the clots are overwhemingly in women.
My guess is that, or something similar, is what they will do.
The decision is about balancing risk. If there is a vaccine effect, the risk is significantly greater for women under the age of 50 - and the risk from Covid, of course, is lower in women, and falls rapidly for younger age groups.
Conversely, I (male and over 50) am not in the least worried about getting a second shot of AZN, and there is almost no reason for me to be so.
I still don't understand why men weren't prioritized for vaccinations. Obviously age is a much bigger factor and women live longer so the stagger might not have been all that pronounced, but even so I'd have thought it would have made sense to do it (perhaps not for care homes, hospitals etc.).
Comments
Spain's government since of course has refused to allow the Catalan nationalist majority government even 1 legal independence referendum, as Tories we should follow the example of our sister party the Popular Party when they were in government and say a firm No to the Nationalists. 2014 was a once in a generation vote
So are all the eloquent paeans to liberty but they are much easier to do and we are knee deep.
That's why its not right to blame Brexit for the SNP being pro independence. It isn't true. Its an excuse they've grasped with both hands open, but if it wasn't Brexit it would be the Tory majority or not honouring some fine detail of the pledge, or any other reason. That's what nationalists do.
The only question is whether the Scots become tired of it. The Quebecois got tired of it after the second evolution, Quebec was given more powers and the locals became happy with their status quo. Partially because they now get vast fiscal transfers from western Canadian provinces like Alberta so they have little reason to seek independence anymore.
Whether people are eager to buy another excuse for another vote later on would be up to the voters of Scotland, as it is in any democracy.
As anyone who has worked with older people will know, they are not all the same. This is what the BBC is saying. This is what Charlie Higson was complaining about. The stereotype that over 50s want to sing along to Vera Lynn over pictures of tanks is absurd. Captain Tom was 100. That's double 50. Almost everyone who'd fought in the war is now dead or Prince Philip.
https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/1419282/charlie-higson-bbc-complaint-age-obsession-viewers-misconceptions-older-generation-latest
Or, from the original Telegraph link, what the BBC said was:
“We find that tastes in older age groups vary just as much as those in any other age range - for example, some older viewers prefer quizzes, soaps and lighter programmes whilst others prefer more cultural or factual programmes.
“This being the case, there simply isn’t a typical programme or range of shows that would appeal specifically to older audiences, and that’s why our television channels and radio stations and the information on our website is for a general audience… we are a general broadcaster so by definition our approach has to be general and broad, so there needs to be a degree of compromise.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/06/bbc-will-not-make-shows-older-viewers-pumping-40m-channel-aimed/
Vaccinations work.
I think a much more likely result can be achieved by knocking 2% off SNP constituency vote, and moving 2% from Greens to SNP on the list vote.
Salmond will then tell her to declare UDI, Sturgeon will ignore him, say she did her best and get back to the day job
The Supreme Court of Canada did not choose 15 years for the date. In fact the Supreme Court ruling came after the referendum and you know that, so stop lying.
The only people who chose the date were the Quebecois voters and the Quebecois government. The federal government had no say in it and you know that.
It's not a pleasant or sensible prospect.
He may get close to zero MSPs while still fracturing the Indy vote. He might end up humiliated and even angrier. lol
It was so marvellous I almost cried
With my wife and children in the car? No.
I doubt anyone will know until the day of the election.
Reduction of 60% in infections, 80% in hospitalisations, and 85% in mortality after 3-5 weeks of a single dose of either Pfizer or AZ.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/971017/SP_PH__VE_report_20210317_CC_JLB.pdf
After both doses (+14 days), the number looks to be close towards 100% for hospitalisations and mortality; it'll never be exactly 100% but should be upper nineties.
Indeed I frequently attack the government; if I have a reason to do so. Johnson is wrong at the slow pace of lifting lockdown (we should be at Stage 3/July 2020 level of restrictions already) and wrong to deny Scotland a democratic choice on its own future - and wrong on other issues.
Just because I agree with Johnson on Europe doesn't make me unquestioning. But your zealotry and refusal to see beyond the tiny issue of just Europe in people makes you a terrible judge of character. As @Leon says, you're a prime example of Strasbourg Syndrome.
Whilst it's potentially inconvienient news this is a bit hyperbolic, we've 1st dosed ~ 60% of all adults and the virus is in abeyance.
Spain's government has of course refused any legal independence referendum by the Catalan nationalist government.
For now we Tories must follow the example of our conservative cousins in the Popular Party in Spain when they were in government in 2017 and refuse a legal independence referendum, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and there must be no concessions to the SNP and Salmond on that.
Pro independence liberals such as you can be ignored
I wouldn't speed by a school, and I don't speed if its raining, but if I deem conditions are right I could do 80 to 90 on the motorway.
I cannot believe the MHRA is considering this. We've had 7 fatalities from 18m doses. WTAFFFFF
"Professor Adam Finn, from the University of Bristol and a member of the Government's vaccine advisory group, the JCVI, admitted pausing the AstraZeneca jab could threaten Britain's roadmap out of lockdown.
"He said today: 'We do need to keep the programme going if the plan to open things up and allow things to get back to normal is to proceed without another wave of the pandemic coming through. So it's quite a tricky balancing act here, getting the balance right, getting vaccines coming through... getting the risk-benefit right for people coming forward.' "
Get tae fuck
You, on the other hand, are an ignorant far right, fuckwit keyboard warrior who demonstrates on a daily basis that you know jack shit about most things you pronounce on. What is really annoying, though, is that you have yet again caused me to break my "be nice to idiots" resolution.
Utter sanctimonious bullshit.
Others might but I hardly believe a word you write about your private life. It's all transparent virtue-signalling.
Sorry, Philip, but that's my take. You carry on though. It's all part of PB's rich mosaic.
Them speaking "after the referendum" means they didn't choose the fifteen year date. 🤦♂️
A unilateral secession without the approval of Westminster would be illegal too, that's no different to what the Supreme Court ruled. But the 15 year date was the choice of the Quebecois, it was not what was "allowed". If the Scots choose differently, then they choose differently. That is democracy.
If they extend unlockdowning, my vague and morose apathy, alleviated by hard work and chat on here, might tip into alcoholic desolation. It really could. Jeez
That's not good for me, so I'll probably limit my access to 'current affairs', and concentrate on the many other wonderful things in my life that I can control, rather than annoying things that I can't, and trust that there's a pattern and that the best outcome will prevail.
Britain Elects
@BritainElects
·
45m
Scottish parliament VIs:
Constituency:
SNP: 53% (+1)
CON: 20% (-3)
LAB: 18% (+3)
LDEM: 6% (-1)
GRN: 2% (-1)
List:
SNP: 38% (-9)
CON: 21% (-1)
LAB: 18% (+4)
GRN: 12% (+4)
LDEM: 6% (-)
ALBA: 3% (+3)
via @IpsosMORI
, 29 Mar - 04 Apr
Chgs. w/ 21 Feb
The rapid antigen test LFDs are evidently pretty effective. If we'd had mass use of them last year (coupled with decent incentives for isolating if testing positive), we could have dispensed with most of the contact tracing apparatus and have achieved better control of the pandemic.
SARS-CoV-2 infectivity by viral load, S gene variants and demographic factors and the utility of lateral flow devices to prevent transmission
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.31.21254687v1
...How SARS-CoV-2 infectivity varies with viral load is incompletely understood. Whether rapid point-of-care antigen lateral flow devices (LFDs) detect most potential transmission sources despite imperfect sensitivity is unknown. Methods: We combined SARS-CoV-2 testing and contact tracing data from England between 01-September-2020 and 28-February-2021. We used multivariable logistic regression to investigate relationships between PCR-confirmed infection in contacts of community-diagnosed cases and index case viral load, S gene target failure (proxy for B.1.1.7 infection), demographics, SARS-CoV-2 incidence, social deprivation, and contact event type. We used LFD performance to simulate the proportion of cases with a PCR-positive contact expected to be detected using one of four LFDs. Results: 231,498/2,474,066 (9%) contacts of 1,064,004 index cases tested PCR-positive. PCR-positive results in contacts independently increased with higher case viral loads (lower Ct values) e.g., 11.7%(95%CI 11.5-12.0%) at Ct=15 and 4.5%(4.4-4.6%) at Ct=30. B.1.1.7 infection increased PCR-positive results by ~50%, (e.g. 1.55-fold, 95%CI 1.49-1.61, at Ct=20). PCR-positive results were most common in household contacts (at Ct=20.1, 8.7%[95%CI 8.6-8.9%]), followed by household visitors (7.1%[6.8-7.3%]), contacts at events/activities (5.2%[4.9-5.4%]), work/education (4.6%[4.4-4.8%]), and least common after outdoor contact (2.9%[2.3-3.8%]). Contacts of children were the least likely to test positive, particularly following contact outdoors or at work/education. The most and least sensitive LFDs would detect 89.5%(89.4-89.6%) and 83.0%(82.8-83.1%) of cases with PCR-positive contacts respectively. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 infectivity varies by case viral load, contact event type, and age. Those with high viral loads are the most infectious. B.1.1.7 increased transmission by ~50%. The best performing LFDs detect most infectious cases...
But you are wrong to suggest Scotland can just call a vote when it wants, it cannot. You may think the Scots have a moral right to call a vote if Nats win a majority in Holyrood, but that's a different matter. The overriding law is the Scotland Act which reserves the power to permit a referendum to Westminster
The Nats, if they win, are free to challenge this in the SCOTUK if they disagree, they will lose
When I do the school run there's many other children going to other schools walking along the paths of the road. In between my house and their school is two other schools (a Catholic primary, and a girls senior school) and so there are lots of children on the pavements and walking around in general. It just isn't safe to be doing 35 or 40 in those circumstances. Heck, due to traffic conditions its rarely possible to get above 20 despite the speed limit being 30.
So no speeding on the school run, it does not happen.
Will be interesting to see how it plays out. It feels to me that "we've got a cunning plan to game the list system" only plays well amongst political obsessives - it's too clever by half and essentially dodgy by its own admission. That's reinforced by its defectors being fringe characters brought together by little more than being out of favour with the SNP leadership... and not without some reason.
It does feel as if a better approach may have been open about coming to bury Sturgeon, or at least put a rocket up the establishment (and the SNP are very much that now). There are plenty of legitimate policy criticisms of the Scottish Government under current management, and some doubt over Sturgeon's stomach for the fight on full independence. It probably would have come across as more honest.
We need to hold them to account on this one ... anything less than a total rescinding of all COVID restrictions on June 21st is completely unacceptable. If they want to keep any restrictions in place or add new ones, then have them make a new case based on the evidence and get it through parliament.
Not sure what the split is on PB but my impression is that it is 60:40 let's unlock now.
Is it/are we typical of the GBP? Seems not by a long way.
Stage 3 (indoor pubs and restaurants etc) will still happen on 17 May.
As for whether the law allows a second referendum, that isn't settled. Some say it does, some say it doesn't. I don't know, I think they should be allowed one, but I don't know if they are. As you say it could end up in SCOTUK.
Apparently the problem is that the "Protocol Department weren't in the delegation". It's like the bloody Delhi Durbar. Surprising UVDL hasn't demanded to ride on an elephant.
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1379740328341729280
I kick myself.
Much like the toasters who jumped from SNP to Alba who are watching their political careers self immolate before their eyes.
Especially when kids are walking along the road. I can not think of a worse example of when speeding would be appropriate than the school run.
The decision is about balancing risk. If there is a vaccine effect, the risk is significantly greater for women under the age of 50 - and the risk from Covid, of course, is lower in women, and falls rapidly for younger age groups.
Conversely, I (male and over 50) am not in the least worried about getting a second shot of AZN, and there is almost no reason for me to be so.
Which would put the Scots in the same position as Quebec: able to hold a referendum if they choose to do so, but unable to do anything even with a Yes result without the consent of Ottawa/London.
Don't know how closely they coordinate, though.
That suggested he would respect the result, the Canadian Supreme Court just confirmed he had the power to ignore the result if it was Yes had he wished to do so and a unilateral secession by the Quebec government would have been illegal under the Canadian constitution
It's long been a bugbear of mine that neither the UK nor insofar as I can tell any other country has properly integrated fast-but-imperfect testing into their control. The administrative structures in public health are stacked against it.
--AS