"“If my language was inappropriate I’ve apologised for it and taken the tweet down...I don’t look at Priti Patel and see her migrant background the colour of her skin, I look at Priti Patel and see her racist policies and the racism she’s carried out.”
If my language was inappropriate?
Why can no one in public life actually apologise for something?
Oh, they do, just things that they are sorry for what other people did. I am very sorry (on behalf of everyone else) about the Irish Famine , slavery, Ballymurphy.
For anything they should be personally sorry for it is "I am sorry, but....". A little like when someone says "I am not racist but...", or the thing I heard on a number of occasions from Glasgow taxi drivers back in the 90's "I don't really hate the English but..."
Astute. We've entered an age where no-one apologies for their own actions but happily apologies for historic ones.
Very hard to get rid of the shit and the smell out of the carpet after someone takes a massive dump on it.
You clearly haven't been telephone canvassing for Labour.
Corbyn doesn't get a mention
Lack of policies lack of charisma lack of warmth lack of being on my side get plenty.
Main thing to make a return They are all the same
The thing I don't get is this - there are oceans of Social Democratic policies out there. That would warm the hearts of everyone from Corbynistas to the wet end of the Conservatives. That's lots and lots of votes.
Yes, I know. This is what Blair did. And hence Evul.
But why not?
Did Blair set out lots of Labour policies prior to the 1997 election campaign? I was only 5 years old at the time so obviously I don't know. It seems that in modern times the opposition only set out policies when the manifesto gets released.
Blair did not set out a substantive raft of policies, no. It was a timid offering. The anodyne pledge card. Sticking to Tory spending plans for 2 years. Do not frighten the horses.
The 97 landslide was built on a feeling. Time for a change. Tired sleazy Tories. THINGS CAN ONLY GET BETTER.
It worked a D:ream. The Conservative government was flushed away like a turd despite the economy looking (and being) quite rosy.
Which just goes to show.
Indeed - its just not healthy to have one party in permanent power, whether that is the Tories in England, the SNP in Scotland or Labour in Wales. People become complacent, more interested in fighting their petty squabbles, lose sight of the public at large. Labour in England needs to start remembering that its no good having the best policies in the world if no one will vote you into power. How much do they hate Blair that showed them that the country was never going to be as socialist as the party?
I agree. One party rule is the pits. And especially if that one party are the Tories.
On 'socialism', I think we need a reset. The economy being substantially nationalized is a dead idea. But policies to devolve wealth and opportunity away from those rolling in it to those starved of it are more needed than ever. For me, this is modern relevant socialism. New socialism if you like.
So I'd like to see us keep the radical spirit of the Corbyn era but (sorry Owen) ditch its clumsy, old fashioned policy programme. Come up with policies that will work in practice to achieve the above objective, a really significant devolution of wealth and opportunity.
And present this with real passion.
New Socialism. New Britain. New Socialism. New Britain.
Just maybe Boris has stolen your clothes !!!!!!!
Hmm. Not sure about that.
To deliver on Leveling Up, this government must enact some big radical polices to ensure that the left behind people in left behind places narrow the gap in a significant and sustainable way with those more fortunate.
If they do this, I'll applaud them, uncomfortable as it will be for me - but I have a feeling I'll be spared.
At least they are trying havent seen any labour policies that would help the left behind even in Corbyn years....plenty of policies that would hurt the left behind though
We'll see how serious the Tories are about it in due course. As for saying you haven't seen any Labour policies targeted at helping the less well off - this can only be because any manifesto of theirs that has ever managed to get in front of you has been consigned, unexamined, to the bin. I imagine you pride yourself on exactly that approach.
First I didnt say I hadnt seen any policies targetting the less well off what I said was I had seen many Corbyn policies that would hurt the less well off.
I will give you an example of a corbyn policy that would actively hurt the left behind
The taking 10% of every company with more than 250 employees
The owners that 10% will be stolen from is mostly us and our pension funds making us all poorer in the long run and the pittance allocated back to employees would not even begin to cover the effect on their pensions. It would also deter companies from setting up in britain thus costing jobs and tax revenue which would mean we all had to pay more tax to cover the short fall.
There you go a corbyn policy that would hurt the left behind, don't even get me started on waspi women or free broadband which were equally corrosive
Four Brits dead from Indian variant as experts (and Dominic Cummings) tell Boris to hit the brakes: PM urged to keep England OUT of pubs and delay Monday's unlocking
4 dead on the roads yesterday (as all days) - Does cummings want to ban driving?
Unless you are driving in order to test your eyesight. Then it is permitted.
It’s what I predicted at about 7pm last night and everyone accused me of being a drunken hysteric on Ket
It’s horribly possible now. My guess is the government will do its usual thing - allow unlockdown for a few days, then truly panic next Thursday at the latest Indian variant data, and lockdown all over again. Christmas redux
Lockdown at sub-10 deaths a day would be ridiculous. It'd be adhered to even less than the November lockdown. It will not change my plans one bit. It will also not happen.
I don't see a countrywide lockdown.
I do see Boris trying to delay forthcoming changes in Bolton and some other places....
Bolton Tory council leader just on WATO. Local lockdowns don't work. Shifts the problem to the next borough. Which in GM often can be a pub just across the road. Burnham agrees. We had a Bolton lockdown in the summer. Led to a surge in Wigan.
Sorry Manchester - you aren't opening up on Monday
The people responsible for this live in the following council wards.....
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: this chart is important
It’s early days, but there are signs that the vaccines may be working against the Indian variant B.1.617.2
Yes, all of these "concerned" experts have yet to present any evidence of vaccine escape. It's just one last push by those who want us all locked away for our own good to conquer death.
I’ve done a fair bit of reading on this variant, now.
The main ‘concern’ is not vaccine evasion, but extra transmissibility. We’re almost sure this version of the bug is more infectious, probably more infectious than Kentish Corona. But whether the variant is 30% or 50% more transmissible will be crucial. 30% and we’ll likely be OK. We can manage. 50% could crush the NHS - given the millions we still need to vax
These were the same modellers that basically just decided that the vaccine rollout would stop and no one else would develop neutralising antibodies from vaccines.
Honestly the doom mongering scientists just need to be ignored. We have vaccines, we have evidence that the Indian variant doesn't escape the vaccines and we are vaccinating at an incredible rate. Additionally there's loads of evidence that the vaccines prevent the spread of COVID which brings the cumulative rate of reduction in hospitalisations down hugely.
Vaccines, not lockdown will be the way out of this and we have them. Everything else is noise.
(I'm not going for another round of our "appropriateness of worst case scenario forecasts debate!)
But I would expect that the 'possible local problems if 50% more transmissive' headlines are based on the worst case models which - as we do agree - will be using unrealistically pessimistic assumptions, such as very little effect of vaccines on onwards transmission if infected.
It's an out-there possibility, perhaps, in some places. If the stars align in exactly the wrong way. The kind of freak universe in which Labour have a 13% national poll lead next Tuesday.
Last time the models simply assumed that no one new would be vaccinated. It's complete garbage modelling, not even a worse case scenario it's literally a false input.
1000 deaths per day when we have vaccinated as many people as we have is in the impossible pile, not in the "if the stars align" pile. This variant does not evade vaccines. These models are garbage and whatever justification you have for them being produced is public sector Stockholm syndrome of politicians asking for specific outcomes to be produced.
Malmesbury says there are 5m vulnerable unvaccinated in the UK
If half of them catch the Indian variant over the summer as we unlockdown that’s 2.5m cases. We can expect 10% of those to be serious enough to require hospitalisation. 250,000 people in hospital. A lot.
1% will die. 25,000 people.
Summer is 90 days long (actually 2 in the UK but whatever)
25,000 divided by 90 is 277 deaths a day. Quite plausible
So, nowhere near 1000 deaths a day but probably bad enough that HMG would wearily lock us all down again
Firstly, those people have chosen not to be vaccinated, secondly the vaccines prevent the spread of the virus even with just a single dose. The cumulative effect of that will reduce these numbers quite significantly. We can't go back into lockdown becuase a few idiots have rejected the vaccine.
Haven't you heard of seasonality or T cell immunity? Go away and learn some elementary facts about respiratory viruses. Also a retired doctor I know says that at medical school in 1964 not only was he taught these two subjects but also that viruses normally compete in the body, i.e. a person wouldn't be expected to have flu, COVID & a severe cold all at the same time. Just as we observed in the past year, much to some peoples' puzzlement.
Four Brits dead from Indian variant as experts (and Dominic Cummings) tell Boris to hit the brakes: PM urged to keep England OUT of pubs and delay Monday's unlocking
4 dead on the roads yesterday (as all days) - Does cummings want to ban driving?
No, he just recommends we do a pre-drive drive to test our eyes to avoid road deaths.
If Michelle is still on, if she phones the Riverside centre on 01983 524058 and asks to speak to Sarah Stringer, the lead nurse, or one of her clinical team, they have offered to talk through the options that would avoid a trip to North Island.
They also said that if people have spoken to their GP - which can be by phone - to discuss the risks before their vaccination appointment, then they can have the AZN at the centre. I have made the point that this requirement is ridiculous if no-one knows about it in advance and also that GPs can be very difficult to contact right now.
They are also saying the same as the IOW Trust, that a glitch in the national booking system has allowed a batch of under 40s to book appointments earlier than they should have been, and they aren’t ready.
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: this chart is important
It’s early days, but there are signs that the vaccines may be working against the Indian variant B.1.617.2
Yes, all of these "concerned" experts have yet to present any evidence of vaccine escape. It's just one last push by those who want us all locked away for our own good to conquer death.
I’ve done a fair bit of reading on this variant, now.
The main ‘concern’ is not vaccine evasion, but extra transmissibility. We’re almost sure this version of the bug is more infectious, probably more infectious than Kentish Corona. But whether the variant is 30% or 50% more transmissible will be crucial. 30% and we’ll likely be OK. We can manage. 50% could crush the NHS - given the millions we still need to vax
These were the same modellers that basically just decided that the vaccine rollout would stop and no one else would develop neutralising antibodies from vaccines.
Honestly the doom mongering scientists just need to be ignored. We have vaccines, we have evidence that the Indian variant doesn't escape the vaccines and we are vaccinating at an incredible rate. Additionally there's loads of evidence that the vaccines prevent the spread of COVID which brings the cumulative rate of reduction in hospitalisations down hugely.
Vaccines, not lockdown will be the way out of this and we have them. Everything else is noise.
(I'm not going for another round of our "appropriateness of worst case scenario forecasts debate!)
But I would expect that the 'possible local problems if 50% more transmissive' headlines are based on the worst case models which - as we do agree - will be using unrealistically pessimistic assumptions, such as very little effect of vaccines on onwards transmission if infected.
It's an out-there possibility, perhaps, in some places. If the stars align in exactly the wrong way. The kind of freak universe in which Labour have a 13% national poll lead next Tuesday.
Last time the models simply assumed that no one new would be vaccinated. It's complete garbage modelling, not even a worse case scenario it's literally a false input.
1000 deaths per day when we have vaccinated as many people as we have is in the impossible pile, not in the "if the stars align" pile. This variant does not evade vaccines. These models are garbage and whatever justification you have for them being produced is public sector Stockholm syndrome of politicians asking for specific outcomes to be produced.
Malmesbury says there are 5m vulnerable unvaccinated in the UK
If half of them catch the Indian variant over the summer as we unlockdown that’s 2.5m cases. We can expect 10% of those to be serious enough to require hospitalisation. 250,000 people in hospital. A lot.
1% will die. 25,000 people.
Summer is 90 days long (actually 2 in the UK but whatever)
25,000 divided by 90 is 277 deaths a day. Quite plausible
So, nowhere near 1000 deaths a day but probably bad enough that HMG would wearily lock us all down again
Firstly, those people have chosen not to be vaccinated, secondly the vaccines prevent the spread of the virus even with just a single dose. The cumulative effect of that will reduce these numbers quite significantly. We can't go back into lockdown becuase a few idiots have rejected the vaccine.
Haven't you heard of seasonality or T cell immunity? Go away and learn some elementary facts about respiratory viruses. Also a retired doctor I know says that at medical school in 1964 not only was he taught these two subjects but also that viruses normally compete in the body, i.e. a person wouldn't be expected to have flu, COVID & a severe cold all at the same time. Just as we observed in the past year, much to some peoples' puzzlement.
"A RETIRED DOCTOR I KNOW.."
You win.
Nah, not as knowledgable as Albanian uber drivers.
Wow. I was assuming that Labour must have been cruising in London given the national polling. Starmer really didn't have a good election.
Bloody hell.
Labour lose control of the London Assembly to the Tories/LDs/Greens.
Didn't see that coming.
And Labour were saying London was one of their good results.....
This is genuinely hilarious. It's worth remembering that, just as the rest of the country often bears little resemblance to London, so too does London bear little resemblance to the rest of the country. London Tories, Greens and LDs are actually often competing for the same middle-class votes - and hence have similar priorities in office - while Labour absolutely dominates the poorer working class areas. It's actually not that surprising they couldn't come to an agreement, especially as London Labour is absolutely riddled with all the most objectionable aspects of the party in recent years. Albeit I wouldn't have predicted it in advance.
Amazing. A progressive alliance is finally formed in this country - and it's against the Labour Party...
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: this chart is important
It’s early days, but there are signs that the vaccines may be working against the Indian variant B.1.617.2
Yes, all of these "concerned" experts have yet to present any evidence of vaccine escape. It's just one last push by those who want us all locked away for our own good to conquer death.
I’ve done a fair bit of reading on this variant, now.
The main ‘concern’ is not vaccine evasion, but extra transmissibility. We’re almost sure this version of the bug is more infectious, probably more infectious than Kentish Corona. But whether the variant is 30% or 50% more transmissible will be crucial. 30% and we’ll likely be OK. We can manage. 50% could crush the NHS - given the millions we still need to vax
These were the same modellers that basically just decided that the vaccine rollout would stop and no one else would develop neutralising antibodies from vaccines.
Honestly the doom mongering scientists just need to be ignored. We have vaccines, we have evidence that the Indian variant doesn't escape the vaccines and we are vaccinating at an incredible rate. Additionally there's loads of evidence that the vaccines prevent the spread of COVID which brings the cumulative rate of reduction in hospitalisations down hugely.
Vaccines, not lockdown will be the way out of this and we have them. Everything else is noise.
(I'm not going for another round of our "appropriateness of worst case scenario forecasts debate!)
But I would expect that the 'possible local problems if 50% more transmissive' headlines are based on the worst case models which - as we do agree - will be using unrealistically pessimistic assumptions, such as very little effect of vaccines on onwards transmission if infected.
It's an out-there possibility, perhaps, in some places. If the stars align in exactly the wrong way. The kind of freak universe in which Labour have a 13% national poll lead next Tuesday.
Last time the models simply assumed that no one new would be vaccinated. It's complete garbage modelling, not even a worse case scenario it's literally a false input.
1000 deaths per day when we have vaccinated as many people as we have is in the impossible pile, not in the "if the stars align" pile. This variant does not evade vaccines. These models are garbage and whatever justification you have for them being produced is public sector Stockholm syndrome of politicians asking for specific outcomes to be produced.
If the models were right they wouldn't have got Sweden so completely wrong. Yet here we are again. Same models. Roughly same assumptions. Round and round we go.
Have they managed to get around to building in seasonality as a parameter yet?
Almost certainly not as that would lead to awkward questions about why Vitamin D supplementation was being rejected / not pushed. (or even harder, to come up with a logical and coherent basis for a seasonality effect without reference to Vit D)
"“If my language was inappropriate I’ve apologised for it and taken the tweet down...I don’t look at Priti Patel and see her migrant background the colour of her skin, I look at Priti Patel and see her racist policies and the racism she’s carried out.”
If my language was inappropriate?
Why can no one in public life actually apologise for something?
It's not a real apology at all. A true apology is usually sufficient to wipe the slate clean. Most people are not particularly vindictive.
If you think you've done nothing wrong, it's better to say so, rather than offer such an excuse for an apology.
What he's really saying is he's sorry he's had to say sorry about it because he was called out.
"“If my language was inappropriate I’ve apologised for it and taken the tweet down...I don’t look at Priti Patel and see her migrant background the colour of her skin, I look at Priti Patel and see her racist policies and the racism she’s carried out.”
If my language was inappropriate?
Why can no one in public life actually apologise for something?
If you're not going to actually apologise, don't bother making a pretend apology - it doesn't fool anyone and it just looks stupid.
A senior councillor round my way a few years ago got interviewed by the BBC about a local mess, and the interviewer said it was one of the best apologies he'd heard. The key was he said straight up the council had cocked up (in those words), and then sought to equivocate. People remember the former part.
Plan A: I'm sorry I was caught Plan B: I'm sorry you're reacting this way Plan C: I'm sorry the situation is what it is
Most politicians (and a union official of that rank is a politician in my book) go for B. It's dumb and insulting. It's not apologising if you maintain you did nothing wrong. If you think that, have the balls to just say so.
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: this chart is important
It’s early days, but there are signs that the vaccines may be working against the Indian variant B.1.617.2
Yes, all of these "concerned" experts have yet to present any evidence of vaccine escape. It's just one last push by those who want us all locked away for our own good to conquer death.
I’ve done a fair bit of reading on this variant, now.
The main ‘concern’ is not vaccine evasion, but extra transmissibility. We’re almost sure this version of the bug is more infectious, probably more infectious than Kentish Corona. But whether the variant is 30% or 50% more transmissible will be crucial. 30% and we’ll likely be OK. We can manage. 50% could crush the NHS - given the millions we still need to vax
These were the same modellers that basically just decided that the vaccine rollout would stop and no one else would develop neutralising antibodies from vaccines.
Honestly the doom mongering scientists just need to be ignored. We have vaccines, we have evidence that the Indian variant doesn't escape the vaccines and we are vaccinating at an incredible rate. Additionally there's loads of evidence that the vaccines prevent the spread of COVID which brings the cumulative rate of reduction in hospitalisations down hugely.
Vaccines, not lockdown will be the way out of this and we have them. Everything else is noise.
(I'm not going for another round of our "appropriateness of worst case scenario forecasts debate!)
But I would expect that the 'possible local problems if 50% more transmissive' headlines are based on the worst case models which - as we do agree - will be using unrealistically pessimistic assumptions, such as very little effect of vaccines on onwards transmission if infected.
It's an out-there possibility, perhaps, in some places. If the stars align in exactly the wrong way. The kind of freak universe in which Labour have a 13% national poll lead next Tuesday.
Last time the models simply assumed that no one new would be vaccinated. It's complete garbage modelling, not even a worse case scenario it's literally a false input.
1000 deaths per day when we have vaccinated as many people as we have is in the impossible pile, not in the "if the stars align" pile. This variant does not evade vaccines. These models are garbage and whatever justification you have for them being produced is public sector Stockholm syndrome of politicians asking for specific outcomes to be produced.
Malmesbury says there are 5m vulnerable unvaccinated in the UK
If half of them catch the Indian variant over the summer as we unlockdown that’s 2.5m cases. We can expect 10% of those to be serious enough to require hospitalisation. 250,000 people in hospital. A lot.
1% will die. 25,000 people.
Summer is 90 days long (actually 2 in the UK but whatever)
25,000 divided by 90 is 277 deaths a day. Quite plausible
So, nowhere near 1000 deaths a day but probably bad enough that HMG would wearily lock us all down again
You need to take into account the CFR of the various groups - unvaccinated.
Not very many 85+ unvaccinated etc.
Otherwise the result in nonsense.
Let us try data. From my CFR data, England CFR percentages, seven day average, for 01/12/2020
Talking of models and modelling and lockdown. Fraser Nelson claims today that members of SAGE who demurred from 'we must lockdown now' model were threaten with being fired.
Said without quotes or any evidence to back it up, just a claim that more will emerge later. In any case, can anyone deny that the lockdowns were actually needed?
You think the editor of the Spectator would put that out if he couldn't stand it up as they say?
If he can't back it up, he shouldn't say it.
Its either that or you simply don't want to face the truth.
The truth that everything you have believed about SAGE's motivation, about lockdown's efficacy and about vaccination setting you free is not really true.
Wow. I was assuming that Labour must have been cruising in London given the national polling. Starmer really didn't have a good election.
Bloody hell.
Labour lose control of the London Assembly to the Tories/LDs/Greens.
Didn't see that coming.
They've signed a deal with the devil. So much for the progressive alliance.
I'm astonished they've danced.
Khan must be very unpopular in the London assembly and members must also have decent cross party relationships.
Khan is generally very unpopular. He won because the Tory candidate was rubbish and there was enough inertia to keep people on side. A better Tory candidate would have won fairly easily IMO.
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: this chart is important
It’s early days, but there are signs that the vaccines may be working against the Indian variant B.1.617.2
Yes, all of these "concerned" experts have yet to present any evidence of vaccine escape. It's just one last push by those who want us all locked away for our own good to conquer death.
I’ve done a fair bit of reading on this variant, now.
The main ‘concern’ is not vaccine evasion, but extra transmissibility. We’re almost sure this version of the bug is more infectious, probably more infectious than Kentish Corona. But whether the variant is 30% or 50% more transmissible will be crucial. 30% and we’ll likely be OK. We can manage. 50% could crush the NHS - given the millions we still need to vax
These were the same modellers that basically just decided that the vaccine rollout would stop and no one else would develop neutralising antibodies from vaccines.
Honestly the doom mongering scientists just need to be ignored. We have vaccines, we have evidence that the Indian variant doesn't escape the vaccines and we are vaccinating at an incredible rate. Additionally there's loads of evidence that the vaccines prevent the spread of COVID which brings the cumulative rate of reduction in hospitalisations down hugely.
Vaccines, not lockdown will be the way out of this and we have them. Everything else is noise.
(I'm not going for another round of our "appropriateness of worst case scenario forecasts debate!)
But I would expect that the 'possible local problems if 50% more transmissive' headlines are based on the worst case models which - as we do agree - will be using unrealistically pessimistic assumptions, such as very little effect of vaccines on onwards transmission if infected.
It's an out-there possibility, perhaps, in some places. If the stars align in exactly the wrong way. The kind of freak universe in which Labour have a 13% national poll lead next Tuesday.
Last time the models simply assumed that no one new would be vaccinated. It's complete garbage modelling, not even a worse case scenario it's literally a false input.
1000 deaths per day when we have vaccinated as many people as we have is in the impossible pile, not in the "if the stars align" pile. This variant does not evade vaccines. These models are garbage and whatever justification you have for them being produced is public sector Stockholm syndrome of politicians asking for specific outcomes to be produced.
Malmesbury says there are 5m vulnerable unvaccinated in the UK
If half of them catch the Indian variant over the summer as we unlockdown that’s 2.5m cases. We can expect 10% of those to be serious enough to require hospitalisation. 250,000 people in hospital. A lot.
1% will die. 25,000 people.
Summer is 90 days long (actually 2 in the UK but whatever)
25,000 divided by 90 is 277 deaths a day. Quite plausible
So, nowhere near 1000 deaths a day but probably bad enough that HMG would wearily lock us all down again
Some will have had covid already. Plus the vaccine and recovered will massively hinder spread, so getting half of them infected will not be as easy as all that.
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: this chart is important
It’s early days, but there are signs that the vaccines may be working against the Indian variant B.1.617.2
Yes, all of these "concerned" experts have yet to present any evidence of vaccine escape. It's just one last push by those who want us all locked away for our own good to conquer death.
I’ve done a fair bit of reading on this variant, now.
The main ‘concern’ is not vaccine evasion, but extra transmissibility. We’re almost sure this version of the bug is more infectious, probably more infectious than Kentish Corona. But whether the variant is 30% or 50% more transmissible will be crucial. 30% and we’ll likely be OK. We can manage. 50% could crush the NHS - given the millions we still need to vax
These were the same modellers that basically just decided that the vaccine rollout would stop and no one else would develop neutralising antibodies from vaccines.
Honestly the doom mongering scientists just need to be ignored. We have vaccines, we have evidence that the Indian variant doesn't escape the vaccines and we are vaccinating at an incredible rate. Additionally there's loads of evidence that the vaccines prevent the spread of COVID which brings the cumulative rate of reduction in hospitalisations down hugely.
Vaccines, not lockdown will be the way out of this and we have them. Everything else is noise.
(I'm not going for another round of our "appropriateness of worst case scenario forecasts debate!)
But I would expect that the 'possible local problems if 50% more transmissive' headlines are based on the worst case models which - as we do agree - will be using unrealistically pessimistic assumptions, such as very little effect of vaccines on onwards transmission if infected.
It's an out-there possibility, perhaps, in some places. If the stars align in exactly the wrong way. The kind of freak universe in which Labour have a 13% national poll lead next Tuesday.
Last time the models simply assumed that no one new would be vaccinated. It's complete garbage modelling, not even a worse case scenario it's literally a false input.
1000 deaths per day when we have vaccinated as many people as we have is in the impossible pile, not in the "if the stars align" pile. This variant does not evade vaccines. These models are garbage and whatever justification you have for them being produced is public sector Stockholm syndrome of politicians asking for specific outcomes to be produced.
Malmesbury says there are 5m vulnerable unvaccinated in the UK
If half of them catch the Indian variant over the summer as we unlockdown that’s 2.5m cases. We can expect 10% of those to be serious enough to require hospitalisation. 250,000 people in hospital. A lot.
1% will die. 25,000 people.
Summer is 90 days long (actually 2 in the UK but whatever)
25,000 divided by 90 is 277 deaths a day. Quite plausible
So, nowhere near 1000 deaths a day but probably bad enough that HMG would wearily lock us all down again
Firstly, those people have chosen not to be vaccinated, secondly the vaccines prevent the spread of the virus even with just a single dose. The cumulative effect of that will reduce these numbers quite significantly. We can't go back into lockdown becuase a few idiots have rejected the vaccine.
Haven't you heard of seasonality or T cell immunity? Go away and learn some elementary facts about respiratory viruses. Also a retired doctor I know says that at medical school in 1964 not only was he taught these two subjects but also that viruses normally compete in the body, i.e. a person wouldn't be expected to have flu, COVID & a severe cold all at the same time. Just as we observed in the past year, much to some peoples' puzzlement.
"A RETIRED DOCTOR I KNOW.."
You win.
Nah, not as knowledgable as Albanian uber drivers.
"“If my language was inappropriate I’ve apologised for it and taken the tweet down...I don’t look at Priti Patel and see her migrant background the colour of her skin, I look at Priti Patel and see her racist policies and the racism she’s carried out.”
If my language was inappropriate?
Why can no one in public life actually apologise for something?
Oh, they do, just things that they are sorry for what other people did. I am very sorry (on behalf of everyone else) about the Irish Famine , slavery, Ballymurphy.
For anything they should be personally sorry for it is "I am sorry, but....". A little like when someone says "I am not racist but...", or the thing I heard on a number of occasions from Glasgow taxi drivers back in the 90's "I don't really hate the English but..."
Astute. We've entered an age where no-one apologies for their own actions but happily apologies for historic ones.
The common theme is narcissism.
Sumption is very good on apologies in his new book.
Aside from the govt attempt at healing wounds between communities which is all well and good he posits that an apology which decontextualises the "original sin" is in effect saying that there are immutable and eternal moral values which hold at all times and are absolute rather than relative. These must, therefore, emanate from outside our human sphere.
Which is pretty much the position that religions hold as self-evident.
Talking of models and modelling and lockdown. Fraser Nelson claims today that members of SAGE who demurred from 'we must lockdown now' model were threaten with being fired.
Said without quotes or any evidence to back it up, just a claim that more will emerge later. In any case, can anyone deny that the lockdowns were actually needed?
You think the editor of the Spectator would put that out if he couldn't stand it up as they say?
If he can't back it up, he shouldn't say it.
Its either that or you simply don't want to face the truth.
The truth that everything you have believed about SAGE's motivation, about lockdown's efficacy and about vaccination setting you free is not really true.
"“If my language was inappropriate I’ve apologised for it and taken the tweet down...I don’t look at Priti Patel and see her migrant background the colour of her skin, I look at Priti Patel and see her racist policies and the racism she’s carried out.”
If my language was inappropriate?
Why can no one in public life actually apologise for something?
It's not a real apology at all. A true apology is usually sufficient to wipe the slate clean. Most people are not particularly vindictive.
If you think you've done nothing wrong, it's better to say so, rather than offer such an excuse for an apology.
It is the left being pathologically sure that they are incapable of being racist.
It is because of the idiocy of defining racism as "far right".
Racism has nothing to do with the left/right spectrum, its more of a horseshoe.
"“If my language was inappropriate I’ve apologised for it and taken the tweet down...I don’t look at Priti Patel and see her migrant background the colour of her skin, I look at Priti Patel and see her racist policies and the racism she’s carried out.”
If my language was inappropriate?
Why can no one in public life actually apologise for something?
It's not a real apology at all. A true apology is usually sufficient to wipe the slate clean. Most people are not particularly vindictive.
If you think you've done nothing wrong, it's better to say so, rather than offer such an excuse for an apology.
It is the left being pathologically sure that they are incapable of being racist.
It is because of the idiocy of defining racism as "far right".
Racism has nothing to do with the left/right spectrum, its more of a horseshoe.
Wow. I was assuming that Labour must have been cruising in London given the national polling. Starmer really didn't have a good election.
Bloody hell.
Labour lose control of the London Assembly to the Tories/LDs/Greens.
Didn't see that coming.
And Labour were saying London was one of their good results.....
This is genuinely hilarious. It's worth remembering that, just as the rest of the country often bears little resemblance to London, so too does London bear little resemblance to the rest of the country. London Tories, Greens and LDs are actually often competing for the same middle-class votes - and hence have similar priorities in office - while Labour absolutely dominates the poorer working class areas. It's actually not that surprising they couldn't come to an agreement, especially as London Labour is absolutely riddled with all the most objectionable aspects of the party in recent years. Albeit I wouldn't have predicted it in advance.
Amazing. A progressive alliance is finally formed in this country - and it's against the Labour Party...
The Greens are being denounced as odious and middle-class by people who appear to fit that description.
Is it true we are not collating vaccinated/unvaccinated cases and hospitalisations data? If so, all modelling is entirely flawed.
No - thats not true. Its not necessarily being published alongside all the data that is. For instance there was a report on this about three weeks ago.
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: this chart is important
It’s early days, but there are signs that the vaccines may be working against the Indian variant B.1.617.2
Yes, all of these "concerned" experts have yet to present any evidence of vaccine escape. It's just one last push by those who want us all locked away for our own good to conquer death.
I’ve done a fair bit of reading on this variant, now.
The main ‘concern’ is not vaccine evasion, but extra transmissibility. We’re almost sure this version of the bug is more infectious, probably more infectious than Kentish Corona. But whether the variant is 30% or 50% more transmissible will be crucial. 30% and we’ll likely be OK. We can manage. 50% could crush the NHS - given the millions we still need to vax
These were the same modellers that basically just decided that the vaccine rollout would stop and no one else would develop neutralising antibodies from vaccines.
Honestly the doom mongering scientists just need to be ignored. We have vaccines, we have evidence that the Indian variant doesn't escape the vaccines and we are vaccinating at an incredible rate. Additionally there's loads of evidence that the vaccines prevent the spread of COVID which brings the cumulative rate of reduction in hospitalisations down hugely.
Vaccines, not lockdown will be the way out of this and we have them. Everything else is noise.
(I'm not going for another round of our "appropriateness of worst case scenario forecasts debate!)
But I would expect that the 'possible local problems if 50% more transmissive' headlines are based on the worst case models which - as we do agree - will be using unrealistically pessimistic assumptions, such as very little effect of vaccines on onwards transmission if infected.
It's an out-there possibility, perhaps, in some places. If the stars align in exactly the wrong way. The kind of freak universe in which Labour have a 13% national poll lead next Tuesday.
Last time the models simply assumed that no one new would be vaccinated. It's complete garbage modelling, not even a worse case scenario it's literally a false input.
1000 deaths per day when we have vaccinated as many people as we have is in the impossible pile, not in the "if the stars align" pile. This variant does not evade vaccines. These models are garbage and whatever justification you have for them being produced is public sector Stockholm syndrome of politicians asking for specific outcomes to be produced.
Malmesbury says there are 5m vulnerable unvaccinated in the UK
If half of them catch the Indian variant over the summer as we unlockdown that’s 2.5m cases. We can expect 10% of those to be serious enough to require hospitalisation. 250,000 people in hospital. A lot.
1% will die. 25,000 people.
Summer is 90 days long (actually 2 in the UK but whatever)
25,000 divided by 90 is 277 deaths a day. Quite plausible
So, nowhere near 1000 deaths a day but probably bad enough that HMG would wearily lock us all down again
Firstly, those people have chosen not to be vaccinated, secondly the vaccines prevent the spread of the virus even with just a single dose. The cumulative effect of that will reduce these numbers quite significantly. We can't go back into lockdown becuase a few idiots have rejected the vaccine.
This here comment of mine is not targeted at anyone on here - honest guv - but I do sense that for some the gesture is particularly upsetting because it smacks of supplication to the Black Man.
Sorry. Nonsense. Only in your mind.
Well there's no doubt - since it's widely expressed - that the 'supplicant' look of taking the knee gets a lot of goats.
Now none of these goats will come out and say, "Yeah, making white people grovel and kneel for BLM, trying to turn the tables innit, well they can fuck right off!"
But what makes you think there's none of that going on? There's some real rage out there about this gesture, remember, and some of those most angry are ... interesting people.
Are you 100% sure it's all due to irritation at virtue signaling and dislike of Marxism? I'm not.
I think you are overanalysing it, and so too are those that are against it. Although not a Labour supporter, I quite like Starmer and I think a lot of people are underestimating him on the basis of polls in a strange time, but I think he looked a bit silly genuflecting. he needs a better spin doctor.
Not sure I am. I'm only suggesting there's a bit of this around in certain quarters.
I agree on the staged "kneeling in office" shot. Bit wooden and inauthentic looking.
You just summed Starmer up
Bit wooden and inauthentic looking.
Yep. Fair cop. It is an issue. For me, I prefer somebody with decorum because it shows they don't have the sort of insecure narcissism or inbred entitlement that makes them assume the world needs and wants to be exposed to lots of their "personality" on a regular basis. But I think I'm in a minority on this and in any case I accept that in these Reality TV days a political leader who is low key is at a tremendous disadvantage.
I hope Starmer can start to relax and unzip from here. But it will be hard because this requires confidence and his confidence must be at a low ebb. He'll be feeling down and emotionally vulnerable, and this could mean he either goes more into his shell or tries to burst out of it in a way that looks a bit crazed and - oh no it's that word again - inauthentic.
Is it true we are not collating vaccinated/unvaccinated cases and hospitalisations data? If so, all modelling is entirely flawed.
We are, it's just not being made public.
Ta. Any particular reason for that? I mean we are publishing data of all other kinds.
Its complicated and probably better to have experts analyse it and publish at the right time. You only need a few reporters latching onto 'x people died after have 2 jabs' to set the Hares racing.
Wow. I was assuming that Labour must have been cruising in London given the national polling. Starmer really didn't have a good election.
Bloody hell.
Labour lose control of the London Assembly to the Tories/LDs/Greens.
Didn't see that coming.
And Labour were saying London was one of their good results.....
This is genuinely hilarious. It's worth remembering that, just as the rest of the country often bears little resemblance to London, so too does London bear little resemblance to the rest of the country. London Tories, Greens and LDs are actually often competing for the same middle-class votes - and hence have similar priorities in office - while Labour absolutely dominates the poorer working class areas. It's actually not that surprising they couldn't come to an agreement, especially as London Labour is absolutely riddled with all the most objectionable aspects of the party in recent years. Albeit I wouldn't have predicted it in advance.
Amazing. A progressive alliance is finally formed in this country - and it's against the Labour Party...
The Greens are being denounced as odious and middle-class by people who appear to fit that description.
I see in Bristol he mayor has raised issues of diversity, which seems to have occured because of a Green surge, though I don't think he blames them directly.
Yougov had Labour on 29% a few weeks ago. 8% for the Greens very unlikely in a GE. Other polls now have Labour on 34% . Factor in a post-Hartlepool effect likely to be short term.
I actually think you are wrong about the Greens
They are growing in popularity here and across Europe
Underestimate the Greens at your peril
Other pollsters do not have them at that level. The Greens - like the LDs - flatter to deceive at Local Elections. Here in Norwich they were very strong a few years back but their success failed to translate into support at parliamentary elections.
But Justin times are changing and fast and looking back does not relate to looking forward
Labour are in an existential crisis and you seem to be in denial
You appear to be engaged - not for the first time - in much wishful thinking. Labour has had a tough period in the wake of the self inflicted Hartlepool wound , and- as I have myself stated on here - Starmer fully deserves a great deal of flak for that. The other election results were more mixed but received less media coverage - particularly Labour successes in West of England and the Cambridgeshire Mayoralties - and ,of course , Wales.I now hold serious doubts as to Starmer's political 'nous' or antennae - but that said Labour's poll ratings remain well above what we saw under Corbyn during most of 2019. Less than six months ago the party was recording regular poll leads - and I expect that to happen again when the 'vaccine bounce' recedes. To a large extent the Greens have eclipsed the LDs as the NOTA option in Local Elections. In very few parliamentary seats do they have serious prospects.
They could have no prospects in any parliamentary seats and still pose a huge problem for Labour.
Indeed so - were they to stand candidates in key marginals. Cameron almost certainly owes his small 2015 majority to them.
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: this chart is important
It’s early days, but there are signs that the vaccines may be working against the Indian variant B.1.617.2
Yes, all of these "concerned" experts have yet to present any evidence of vaccine escape. It's just one last push by those who want us all locked away for our own good to conquer death.
I’ve done a fair bit of reading on this variant, now.
The main ‘concern’ is not vaccine evasion, but extra transmissibility. We’re almost sure this version of the bug is more infectious, probably more infectious than Kentish Corona. But whether the variant is 30% or 50% more transmissible will be crucial. 30% and we’ll likely be OK. We can manage. 50% could crush the NHS - given the millions we still need to vax
These were the same modellers that basically just decided that the vaccine rollout would stop and no one else would develop neutralising antibodies from vaccines.
Honestly the doom mongering scientists just need to be ignored. We have vaccines, we have evidence that the Indian variant doesn't escape the vaccines and we are vaccinating at an incredible rate. Additionally there's loads of evidence that the vaccines prevent the spread of COVID which brings the cumulative rate of reduction in hospitalisations down hugely.
Vaccines, not lockdown will be the way out of this and we have them. Everything else is noise.
(I'm not going for another round of our "appropriateness of worst case scenario forecasts debate!)
But I would expect that the 'possible local problems if 50% more transmissive' headlines are based on the worst case models which - as we do agree - will be using unrealistically pessimistic assumptions, such as very little effect of vaccines on onwards transmission if infected.
It's an out-there possibility, perhaps, in some places. If the stars align in exactly the wrong way. The kind of freak universe in which Labour have a 13% national poll lead next Tuesday.
Last time the models simply assumed that no one new would be vaccinated. It's complete garbage modelling, not even a worse case scenario it's literally a false input.
1000 deaths per day when we have vaccinated as many people as we have is in the impossible pile, not in the "if the stars align" pile. This variant does not evade vaccines. These models are garbage and whatever justification you have for them being produced is public sector Stockholm syndrome of politicians asking for specific outcomes to be produced.
Malmesbury says there are 5m vulnerable unvaccinated in the UK
If half of them catch the Indian variant over the summer as we unlockdown that’s 2.5m cases. We can expect 10% of those to be serious enough to require hospitalisation. 250,000 people in hospital. A lot.
1% will die. 25,000 people.
Summer is 90 days long (actually 2 in the UK but whatever)
25,000 divided by 90 is 277 deaths a day. Quite plausible
So, nowhere near 1000 deaths a day but probably bad enough that HMG would wearily lock us all down again
Some will have had covid already. Plus the vaccine and recovered will massively hinder spread, so getting half of them infected will not be as easy as all that.
And vaccinated cohorts are much less likely to spread the virus and we're now beginning to vaccinate the two major groups that are most likely to spread it, 30-39 year olds and 18-29 year olds.
The claims about this just don't hold any water and the scientists are simply giving zero COVID one last push before unlockdown so they can keep everyone locked up a fearful of whatever variant they deem to be a risk.
It's time for them to present their evidence to the public, not release alarming headlines about data models they've produced which are intended to get specific results.
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: this chart is important
It’s early days, but there are signs that the vaccines may be working against the Indian variant B.1.617.2
Yes, all of these "concerned" experts have yet to present any evidence of vaccine escape. It's just one last push by those who want us all locked away for our own good to conquer death.
I’ve done a fair bit of reading on this variant, now.
The main ‘concern’ is not vaccine evasion, but extra transmissibility. We’re almost sure this version of the bug is more infectious, probably more infectious than Kentish Corona. But whether the variant is 30% or 50% more transmissible will be crucial. 30% and we’ll likely be OK. We can manage. 50% could crush the NHS - given the millions we still need to vax
These were the same modellers that basically just decided that the vaccine rollout would stop and no one else would develop neutralising antibodies from vaccines.
Honestly the doom mongering scientists just need to be ignored. We have vaccines, we have evidence that the Indian variant doesn't escape the vaccines and we are vaccinating at an incredible rate. Additionally there's loads of evidence that the vaccines prevent the spread of COVID which brings the cumulative rate of reduction in hospitalisations down hugely.
Vaccines, not lockdown will be the way out of this and we have them. Everything else is noise.
(I'm not going for another round of our "appropriateness of worst case scenario forecasts debate!)
But I would expect that the 'possible local problems if 50% more transmissive' headlines are based on the worst case models which - as we do agree - will be using unrealistically pessimistic assumptions, such as very little effect of vaccines on onwards transmission if infected.
It's an out-there possibility, perhaps, in some places. If the stars align in exactly the wrong way. The kind of freak universe in which Labour have a 13% national poll lead next Tuesday.
Last time the models simply assumed that no one new would be vaccinated. It's complete garbage modelling, not even a worse case scenario it's literally a false input.
1000 deaths per day when we have vaccinated as many people as we have is in the impossible pile, not in the "if the stars align" pile. This variant does not evade vaccines. These models are garbage and whatever justification you have for them being produced is public sector Stockholm syndrome of politicians asking for specific outcomes to be produced.
Malmesbury says there are 5m vulnerable unvaccinated in the UK
If half of them catch the Indian variant over the summer as we unlockdown that’s 2.5m cases. We can expect 10% of those to be serious enough to require hospitalisation. 250,000 people in hospital. A lot.
1% will die. 25,000 people.
Summer is 90 days long (actually 2 in the UK but whatever)
25,000 divided by 90 is 277 deaths a day. Quite plausible
So, nowhere near 1000 deaths a day but probably bad enough that HMG would wearily lock us all down again
Firstly, those people have chosen not to be vaccinated, secondly the vaccines prevent the spread of the virus even with just a single dose. The cumulative effect of that will reduce these numbers quite significantly. We can't go back into lockdown becuase a few idiots have rejected the vaccine.
Haven't you heard of seasonality or T cell immunity? Go away and learn some elementary facts about respiratory viruses. Also a retired doctor I know says that at medical school in 1964 not only was he taught these two subjects but also that viruses normally compete in the body, i.e. a person wouldn't be expected to have flu, COVID & a severe cold all at the same time. Just as we observed in the past year, much to some peoples' puzzlement.
"A RETIRED DOCTOR I KNOW.."
You win.
Nah, not as knowledgable as Albanian uber drivers.
Four Brits dead from Indian variant as experts (and Dominic Cummings) tell Boris to hit the brakes: PM urged to keep England OUT of pubs and delay Monday's unlocking
Wow. I was assuming that Labour must have been cruising in London given the national polling. Starmer really didn't have a good election.
Bloody hell.
Labour lose control of the London Assembly to the Tories/LDs/Greens.
Didn't see that coming.
The point about London Tories/Greens etc not necessarily being like those in other areas is well made, but even their voters may not mind all that much. In PCC elections you see some odd combination of 1st and second preferences for instance, with Green then Tory, Tory then LD etc etc.
Four Brits dead from Indian variant as experts (and Dominic Cummings) tell Boris to hit the brakes: PM urged to keep England OUT of pubs and delay Monday's unlocking
Good ole Independent Sage again...
Their name deliberately being chosen to cause confusion with actual SAGE rends suspect everything they may choose to say. There is no good reason to have chosen a name designed to cause such confusion.
Wow. I was assuming that Labour must have been cruising in London given the national polling. Starmer really didn't have a good election.
Bloody hell.
Labour lose control of the London Assembly to the Tories/LDs/Greens.
Didn't see that coming.
They've signed a deal with the devil. So much for the progressive alliance.
I'm astonished they've danced.
Khan must be very unpopular in the London assembly and members must also have decent cross party relationships.
Khan is generally very unpopular. He won because the Tory candidate was rubbish and there was enough inertia to keep people on side. A better Tory candidate would have won fairly easily IMO.
Interesting, thanks.
London is far from the write-off I thought it was. Clearly there is still potential there for a centre-right economic and administrative platform there to win out.
Four Brits dead from Indian variant as experts (and Dominic Cummings) tell Boris to hit the brakes: PM urged to keep England OUT of pubs and delay Monday's unlocking
Good ole Independent Sage again...
Their name deliberately being chosen to cause confusion with actual SAGE rends suspect everything they may choose to say. There is no good reason to have chosen a name designed to cause such confusion.
And it probably makes the government less inclined to listen to them in the first place.
"“If my language was inappropriate I’ve apologised for it and taken the tweet down...I don’t look at Priti Patel and see her migrant background the colour of her skin, I look at Priti Patel and see her racist policies and the racism she’s carried out.”
If my language was inappropriate?
Why can no one in public life actually apologise for something?
Oh, they do, just things that they are sorry for what other people did. I am very sorry (on behalf of everyone else) about the Irish Famine , slavery, Ballymurphy.
For anything they should be personally sorry for it is "I am sorry, but....". A little like when someone says "I am not racist but...", or the thing I heard on a number of occasions from Glasgow taxi drivers back in the 90's "I don't really hate the English but..."
Astute. We've entered an age where no-one apologies for their own actions but happily apologies for historic ones.
The common theme is narcissism.
Sumption is very good on apologies in his new book.
Aside from the govt attempt at healing wounds between communities which is all well and good he posits that an apology which decontextualises the "original sin" is in effect saying that there are immutable and eternal moral values which hold at all times and are absolute rather than relative. These must, therefore, emanate from outside our human sphere.
Which is pretty much the position that religions hold as self-evident.
Indeed. I often try to get the blind to see this by posing the inverse hypothesis: how confident are you that your values will stand up to absolute scrutiny by future generations in 100-200 years time?
Doesn't often work because most people haven't thought about it and lack imagination.
Mr. Above, if BLM says 'get on your knees' and Starmer does it, I'm not sure it's a huge stretch to view that as him kneeling for BLM.
I didn't partake in the clapping for the NHS thing. If I had wandered outside at that time and started smacking my hands together, then claimed it was nothing to do with the NHS, would you believe that?
I'm sorry but this is just ignorant.
There's a difference between supporting the proposition "black lives matter" and the organisation "Black Lives Matter".
Clearly you've decided to hate both 'cos of "culture war reasons" or whatever. I'm sorry, but it's pathetic.
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: this chart is important
It’s early days, but there are signs that the vaccines may be working against the Indian variant B.1.617.2
Yes, all of these "concerned" experts have yet to present any evidence of vaccine escape. It's just one last push by those who want us all locked away for our own good to conquer death.
I’ve done a fair bit of reading on this variant, now.
The main ‘concern’ is not vaccine evasion, but extra transmissibility. We’re almost sure this version of the bug is more infectious, probably more infectious than Kentish Corona. But whether the variant is 30% or 50% more transmissible will be crucial. 30% and we’ll likely be OK. We can manage. 50% could crush the NHS - given the millions we still need to vax
These were the same modellers that basically just decided that the vaccine rollout would stop and no one else would develop neutralising antibodies from vaccines.
Honestly the doom mongering scientists just need to be ignored. We have vaccines, we have evidence that the Indian variant doesn't escape the vaccines and we are vaccinating at an incredible rate. Additionally there's loads of evidence that the vaccines prevent the spread of COVID which brings the cumulative rate of reduction in hospitalisations down hugely.
Vaccines, not lockdown will be the way out of this and we have them. Everything else is noise.
(I'm not going for another round of our "appropriateness of worst case scenario forecasts debate!)
But I would expect that the 'possible local problems if 50% more transmissive' headlines are based on the worst case models which - as we do agree - will be using unrealistically pessimistic assumptions, such as very little effect of vaccines on onwards transmission if infected.
It's an out-there possibility, perhaps, in some places. If the stars align in exactly the wrong way. The kind of freak universe in which Labour have a 13% national poll lead next Tuesday.
Last time the models simply assumed that no one new would be vaccinated. It's complete garbage modelling, not even a worse case scenario it's literally a false input.
1000 deaths per day when we have vaccinated as many people as we have is in the impossible pile, not in the "if the stars align" pile. This variant does not evade vaccines. These models are garbage and whatever justification you have for them being produced is public sector Stockholm syndrome of politicians asking for specific outcomes to be produced.
Malmesbury says there are 5m vulnerable unvaccinated in the UK
If half of them catch the Indian variant over the summer as we unlockdown that’s 2.5m cases. We can expect 10% of those to be serious enough to require hospitalisation. 250,000 people in hospital. A lot.
1% will die. 25,000 people.
Summer is 90 days long (actually 2 in the UK but whatever)
25,000 divided by 90 is 277 deaths a day. Quite plausible
So, nowhere near 1000 deaths a day but probably bad enough that HMG would wearily lock us all down again
Some will have had covid already. Plus the vaccine and recovered will massively hinder spread, so getting half of them infected will not be as easy as all that.
But, even taking the 50% infected, the CFR for those in their 30s is about 0.1% and it drops further from there as you look at younger groups. So if, back of a cigarette pack, we use your numbers Leon, and assume that the unvaccinated are mostly under 40 and then take the highest CFR for that group, that gives us 2,500 additional deaths, or 28 a day.
Personal and family tragedies but not catastrophic.
Wow. I was assuming that Labour must have been cruising in London given the national polling. Starmer really didn't have a good election.
Bloody hell.
Labour lose control of the London Assembly to the Tories/LDs/Greens.
Didn't see that coming.
They've signed a deal with the devil. So much for the progressive alliance.
I'm astonished they've danced.
Khan must be very unpopular in the London assembly and members must also have decent cross party relationships.
Can't comment on the London Assembly specifically, but Khan is very unpopular generally. If he wasn't, he'd have won re-election by a landslide. Which serves him right, because he's a posturing self-absorbed publicity-obsessed pompous ass, who is far more interested in advancing his own visibility and long term career prospects than actually doing his current job.
Khan is far, far more like his predecessor than he would like to admit.
Admittedly, part of his problem is that he is absolutely hated by a large wing of his own party for not being pro-Corbyn enough (or at all, really). So, I sort of forgive him a bit for that.
Wow. I was assuming that Labour must have been cruising in London given the national polling. Starmer really didn't have a good election.
Bloody hell.
Labour lose control of the London Assembly to the Tories/LDs/Greens.
Didn't see that coming.
They've signed a deal with the devil. So much for the progressive alliance.
I'm astonished they've danced.
Khan must be very unpopular in the London assembly and members must also have decent cross party relationships.
Khan is generally very unpopular. He won because the Tory candidate was rubbish and there was enough inertia to keep people on side. A better Tory candidate would have won fairly easily IMO.
Interesting, thanks.
London is far from the write-off I thought it was. Clearly there is still potential there for a centre-right economic and administrative platform there to win out.
Yes, there definitely is. I don't think the Tories will recover many MPs for a while in London but people are very tired of Sadiq. I think the locals next year will be a bit of a shock for some people, the LTNs that Labour councils have been implementing are extremely unpopular. A Labour member I know is intending to vote Tory for his local council as they have pledged to remove all of the LTNs.
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: this chart is important
It’s early days, but there are signs that the vaccines may be working against the Indian variant B.1.617.2
Yes, all of these "concerned" experts have yet to present any evidence of vaccine escape. It's just one last push by those who want us all locked away for our own good to conquer death.
I’ve done a fair bit of reading on this variant, now.
The main ‘concern’ is not vaccine evasion, but extra transmissibility. We’re almost sure this version of the bug is more infectious, probably more infectious than Kentish Corona. But whether the variant is 30% or 50% more transmissible will be crucial. 30% and we’ll likely be OK. We can manage. 50% could crush the NHS - given the millions we still need to vax
These were the same modellers that basically just decided that the vaccine rollout would stop and no one else would develop neutralising antibodies from vaccines.
Honestly the doom mongering scientists just need to be ignored. We have vaccines, we have evidence that the Indian variant doesn't escape the vaccines and we are vaccinating at an incredible rate. Additionally there's loads of evidence that the vaccines prevent the spread of COVID which brings the cumulative rate of reduction in hospitalisations down hugely.
Vaccines, not lockdown will be the way out of this and we have them. Everything else is noise.
There is far too much reliance on a small model number of models rather than actual real world data thats for sure.
The trouble is that by the time you have real world data, it's a bit late. If you want to predict, you need models (which should be sceptically assessed, updated with updated info and assumptions tested as far as possible).
But you need to base the inputs on observed data and reasonable extrapolation. You don't put in 45% of people having neutralising antibodies after we know that 55% of people have them according to real world data.
You're defending this kind of fake worst case scenario modelling but it exists to serve political aims.
First point: Absolutely
Second point: I'm not, in the quoted post - in fact I put those things about 'updated info' and 'assumptions tested' in to try and avoid triggering you on this That's a debate that we've had and you have your view and I have mine, we've both argued them and I don't see any value in rehashing it. I do agree that the planning should be based on probable scenarios, not worst case and I also wish the media wouldn't fixate on worst case and ignore all others.
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: this chart is important
It’s early days, but there are signs that the vaccines may be working against the Indian variant B.1.617.2
Yes, all of these "concerned" experts have yet to present any evidence of vaccine escape. It's just one last push by those who want us all locked away for our own good to conquer death.
I’ve done a fair bit of reading on this variant, now.
The main ‘concern’ is not vaccine evasion, but extra transmissibility. We’re almost sure this version of the bug is more infectious, probably more infectious than Kentish Corona. But whether the variant is 30% or 50% more transmissible will be crucial. 30% and we’ll likely be OK. We can manage. 50% could crush the NHS - given the millions we still need to vax
These were the same modellers that basically just decided that the vaccine rollout would stop and no one else would develop neutralising antibodies from vaccines.
Honestly the doom mongering scientists just need to be ignored. We have vaccines, we have evidence that the Indian variant doesn't escape the vaccines and we are vaccinating at an incredible rate. Additionally there's loads of evidence that the vaccines prevent the spread of COVID which brings the cumulative rate of reduction in hospitalisations down hugely.
Vaccines, not lockdown will be the way out of this and we have them. Everything else is noise.
(I'm not going for another round of our "appropriateness of worst case scenario forecasts debate!)
But I would expect that the 'possible local problems if 50% more transmissive' headlines are based on the worst case models which - as we do agree - will be using unrealistically pessimistic assumptions, such as very little effect of vaccines on onwards transmission if infected.
It's an out-there possibility, perhaps, in some places. If the stars align in exactly the wrong way. The kind of freak universe in which Labour have a 13% national poll lead next Tuesday.
Last time the models simply assumed that no one new would be vaccinated. It's complete garbage modelling, not even a worse case scenario it's literally a false input.
1000 deaths per day when we have vaccinated as many people as we have is in the impossible pile, not in the "if the stars align" pile. This variant does not evade vaccines. These models are garbage and whatever justification you have for them being produced is public sector Stockholm syndrome of politicians asking for specific outcomes to be produced.
Malmesbury says there are 5m vulnerable unvaccinated in the UK
If half of them catch the Indian variant over the summer as we unlockdown that’s 2.5m cases. We can expect 10% of those to be serious enough to require hospitalisation. 250,000 people in hospital. A lot.
1% will die. 25,000 people.
Summer is 90 days long (actually 2 in the UK but whatever)
25,000 divided by 90 is 277 deaths a day. Quite plausible
So, nowhere near 1000 deaths a day but probably bad enough that HMG would wearily lock us all down again
I don’t say it lightly but those 25,000 can go fuck themselves as far as I’m concerned.
I went out yesterday, first time around and about shops, etc in a while. Plenty closed (central London) that said.
However, be very careful when you venture out because you will spend like a bastard when you do. Having not been out or spent money in person for so long I spent around £200 on I know not what, really. I didn't look at the price tags (no, I was not in the Jack Barclay showroom) and just was relieved to be spending with a human being.
Wow. I was assuming that Labour must have been cruising in London given the national polling. Starmer really didn't have a good election.
Bloody hell.
Labour lose control of the London Assembly to the Tories/LDs/Greens.
Didn't see that coming.
They've signed a deal with the devil. So much for the progressive alliance.
I'm astonished they've danced.
Khan must be very unpopular in the London assembly and members must also have decent cross party relationships.
Khan is generally very unpopular. He won because the Tory candidate was rubbish and there was enough inertia to keep people on side. A better Tory candidate would have won fairly easily IMO.
Interesting, thanks.
London is far from the write-off I thought it was. Clearly there is still potential there for a centre-right economic and administrative platform there to win out.
Yes, there definitely is. I don't think the Tories will recover many MPs for a while in London but people are very tired of Sadiq. I think the locals next year will be a bit of a shock for some people, the LTNs that Labour councils have been implementing are extremely unpopular. A Labour member I know is intending to vote Tory for his local council as they have pledged to remove all of the LTNs.
I went out yesterday, first time around and about shops, etc in a while. Plenty closed (central London) that said.
However, be very careful when you venture out because you will spend like a bastard when you do. Having not been out or spent money in person for so long I spent around £200 on I know not what, really. I didn't look at the price tags (no, I was not in the Jack Barclay showroom) and just was relieved to be spending with a human being.
So be careful out there.
Newcastle (and the Metrocentre) has more empty shop units than I've ever seen. Retail is not in a good place.
Mr. Above, if BLM says 'get on your knees' and Starmer does it, I'm not sure it's a huge stretch to view that as him kneeling for BLM.
I didn't partake in the clapping for the NHS thing. If I had wandered outside at that time and started smacking my hands together, then claimed it was nothing to do with the NHS, would you believe that?
I'm sorry but this is just ignorant.
There's a difference between supporting the proposition "black lives matter" and the organisation "Black Lives Matter".
Clearly you've decided to hate both 'cos of "culture war reasons" or whatever. I'm sorry, but it's pathetic.
I think it's fine that footballers take the knee before a match. Because although there are minor issues around it and some have decided not to, the overwhelming message, shorn of politics, is: don't be racist. And when the BLM politics has been forgotten, that will still be the message.
Oh yes. And a curious one too. Very curious. I genuinely wish to understand why somebody would be so absolutely LIVID about people taking a knee for BLM.
Couple of questions if I may and you're not running -
Assume a person (here) is genuinely appalled by Floyd type happenings in America and wishes to show it in a manner that others can see. Is there a way in which this could be done that would meet with your approval?
The gesture itself. Does the kneeling aspect make it worse for you? Eg if it was upright and clenched fist would that be less offensive? Or maybe just singing a song or something, no body parts involvement at all?
You have largely answered your own question: Why would a person (here) who is genuinely appalled by Floyd type happenings in America wish to show it in a manner that others can see?
Because they have no inner life and signalling their virtue to the world is the whole point of the exercise?
Or perhaps it's simply that you can't empathize with somebody getting upset about this issue and therefore you assume the upset is faked. That squares the circle for you.
See, we can both read minds.
I empathize with the original issue to the extent that I think Chauvin and other police officers who murder unarmed suspects should receive life sentences; in a US context, I'd be in favour of executing them for their gross betrayal of the public trust.
But the people who want to use that real, specific problem as a form of emotional blackmail to subvert our cultural institutions? Forget my empathy, they deserve only contempt.
A slightly different point. That's the issue whereas we were talking about the people who protest the issue. If we split them into 2 groups -
(i) Those driven primarily by hatred of our cultural institutions, using a high profile racist murder in America as a form of emotional blackmail to subvert them.
(ii) Those driven primarily by hatred of racism, using a high profile racist murder in America to emote and give voice to this.
I went out yesterday, first time around and about shops, etc in a while. Plenty closed (central London) that said.
However, be very careful when you venture out because you will spend like a bastard when you do. Having not been out or spent money in person for so long I spent around £200 on I know not what, really. I didn't look at the price tags (no, I was not in the Jack Barclay showroom) and just was relieved to be spending with a human being.
So be careful out there.
Newcastle (and the Metrocentre) has more empty shop units than I've ever seen. Retail is not in a good place.
Shopping malls, having killed town centre shops, are dying in the US. Locally, two of three have been demolished and replaced with high end housing/office/grocery/restaurant spaces, and the remaining one is ⅓ empty with tyre shops, 7-11s and various nail salons taking up a lot of the space too - businesses that could never have afforded the rent just 5 years ago.
Mr. Above, if BLM says 'get on your knees' and Starmer does it, I'm not sure it's a huge stretch to view that as him kneeling for BLM.
I didn't partake in the clapping for the NHS thing. If I had wandered outside at that time and started smacking my hands together, then claimed it was nothing to do with the NHS, would you believe that?
I'm sorry but this is just ignorant.
There's a difference between supporting the proposition "black lives matter" and the organisation "Black Lives Matter".
Clearly you've decided to hate both 'cos of "culture war reasons" or whatever. I'm sorry, but it's pathetic.
I think it's fine that footballers take the knee before a match. Because although there are minor issues around it and some have decided not to, the overwhelming message, shorn of politics, is: don't be racist. And when the BLM politics has been forgotten, that will still be the message.
I think the important thing is that if some people wish to express that anti-racist message by using the same symbol Colin Kaepernick used, then that's okay.
Similarly, if people choose not to "take the knee" for whatever reason, then that's okay too.
F1 does it right. Some drivers do, some drivers don't, and that's cool.
Hatred of it is just irrational and clearly motivated by something else.
"“If my language was inappropriate I’ve apologised for it and taken the tweet down...I don’t look at Priti Patel and see her migrant background the colour of her skin, I look at Priti Patel and see her racist policies and the racism she’s carried out.”
If my language was inappropriate?
Why can no one in public life actually apologise for something?
It's not a real apology at all. A true apology is usually sufficient to wipe the slate clean. Most people are not particularly vindictive.
If you think you've done nothing wrong, it's better to say so, rather than offer such an excuse for an apology.
All his political opponents will have the tweet stashed in their databases for future weaponisation. As a well-known corporate shill once said, too many tweets make a twat, and end careers.
We’re on course, I believe, for the coldest May in recorded history
Slightly surprising it’s not bigger news
Following the coldest April in 100 years. What happened to global warming?
Alright granddad. If you're not trolling and willing to learn — It's "climate change" as a result of "global warming". Global warming, as in the average rise in earth's temperature, means that some areas of the earth may get colder, or have unseasonable weather, due to structural changes in weather systems, etc.
We’re on course, I believe, for the coldest May in recorded history
Slightly surprising it’s not bigger news
Following the coldest April in 100 years. What happened to global warming?
Rebranded as "climate change", at least in part to pre-empt fallacious comments like this one, which confuse short-term noise with the long-term signal.
Wow. I was assuming that Labour must have been cruising in London given the national polling. Starmer really didn't have a good election.
Bloody hell.
Labour lose control of the London Assembly to the Tories/LDs/Greens.
Didn't see that coming.
They've signed a deal with the devil. So much for the progressive alliance.
I'm astonished they've danced.
Khan must be very unpopular in the London assembly and members must also have decent cross party relationships.
Khan is generally very unpopular. He won because the Tory candidate was rubbish and there was enough inertia to keep people on side. A better Tory candidate would have won fairly easily IMO.
Interesting, thanks.
London is far from the write-off I thought it was. Clearly there is still potential there for a centre-right economic and administrative platform there to win out.
Yes, there definitely is. I don't think the Tories will recover many MPs for a while in London but people are very tired of Sadiq. I think the locals next year will be a bit of a shock for some people, the LTNs that Labour councils have been implementing are extremely unpopular. A Labour member I know is intending to vote Tory for his local council as they have pledged to remove all of the LTNs.
I think they're something where there's very loud and angry opposition at first and then it dies down and people quite like them (see for example Waltham Forest, which did them a while ago had huge protests and now they're very popular). Personally I'm a huge supporter as are a lot of people I know, but one has to remember the risks of living in a bubble (in both directions). Certainly I wouldn't post on my local facebook group about them because of the amount of shit you get from angry people.
This here comment of mine is not targeted at anyone on here - honest guv - but I do sense that for some the gesture is particularly upsetting because it smacks of supplication to the Black Man.
Sorry. Nonsense. Only in your mind.
Well there's no doubt - since it's widely expressed - that the 'supplicant' look of taking the knee gets a lot of goats.
Now none of these goats will come out and say, "Yeah, making white people grovel and kneel for BLM, trying to turn the tables innit, well they can fuck right off!"
But what makes you think there's none of that going on? There's some real rage out there about this gesture, remember, and some of those most angry are ... interesting people.
Are you 100% sure it's all due to irritation at virtue signaling and dislike of Marxism? I'm not.
I think you are overanalysing it, and so too are those that are against it. Although not a Labour supporter, I quite like Starmer and I think a lot of people are underestimating him on the basis of polls in a strange time, but I think he looked a bit silly genuflecting. he needs a better spin doctor.
Not sure I am. I'm only suggesting there's a bit of this around in certain quarters.
I agree on the staged "kneeling in office" shot. Bit wooden and inauthentic looking.
You just summed Starmer up
Bit wooden and inauthentic looking.
Yep. Fair cop. It is an issue. For me, I prefer somebody with decorum because it shows they don't have the sort of insecure narcissism or inbred entitlement that makes them assume the world needs and wants to be exposed to lots of their "personality" on a regular basis. But I think I'm in a minority on this and in any case I accept that in these Reality TV days a political leader who is low key is at a tremendous disadvantage.
I hope Starmer can start to relax and unzip from here. But it will be hard because this requires confidence and his confidence must be at a low ebb. He'll be feeling down and emotionally vulnerable, and this could mean he either goes more into his shell or tries to burst out of it in a way that looks a bit crazed and - oh no it's that word again - inauthentic.
Tough times.
Something I noticed about Sir Keir the other day that encapsulates his ability to annoy both sides whilst trying to do the right thing & not being a bad bloke
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: this chart is important
It’s early days, but there are signs that the vaccines may be working against the Indian variant B.1.617.2
Yes, all of these "concerned" experts have yet to present any evidence of vaccine escape. It's just one last push by those who want us all locked away for our own good to conquer death.
I’ve done a fair bit of reading on this variant, now.
The main ‘concern’ is not vaccine evasion, but extra transmissibility. We’re almost sure this version of the bug is more infectious, probably more infectious than Kentish Corona. But whether the variant is 30% or 50% more transmissible will be crucial. 30% and we’ll likely be OK. We can manage. 50% could crush the NHS - given the millions we still need to vax
These were the same modellers that basically just decided that the vaccine rollout would stop and no one else would develop neutralising antibodies from vaccines.
Honestly the doom mongering scientists just need to be ignored. We have vaccines, we have evidence that the Indian variant doesn't escape the vaccines and we are vaccinating at an incredible rate. Additionally there's loads of evidence that the vaccines prevent the spread of COVID which brings the cumulative rate of reduction in hospitalisations down hugely.
Vaccines, not lockdown will be the way out of this and we have them. Everything else is noise.
(I'm not going for another round of our "appropriateness of worst case scenario forecasts debate!)
But I would expect that the 'possible local problems if 50% more transmissive' headlines are based on the worst case models which - as we do agree - will be using unrealistically pessimistic assumptions, such as very little effect of vaccines on onwards transmission if infected.
It's an out-there possibility, perhaps, in some places. If the stars align in exactly the wrong way. The kind of freak universe in which Labour have a 13% national poll lead next Tuesday.
Last time the models simply assumed that no one new would be vaccinated. It's complete garbage modelling, not even a worse case scenario it's literally a false input.
1000 deaths per day when we have vaccinated as many people as we have is in the impossible pile, not in the "if the stars align" pile. This variant does not evade vaccines. These models are garbage and whatever justification you have for them being produced is public sector Stockholm syndrome of politicians asking for specific outcomes to be produced.
Malmesbury says there are 5m vulnerable unvaccinated in the UK
If half of them catch the Indian variant over the summer as we unlockdown that’s 2.5m cases. We can expect 10% of those to be serious enough to require hospitalisation. 250,000 people in hospital. A lot.
1% will die. 25,000 people.
Summer is 90 days long (actually 2 in the UK but whatever)
25,000 divided by 90 is 277 deaths a day. Quite plausible
So, nowhere near 1000 deaths a day but probably bad enough that HMG would wearily lock us all down again
Some will have had covid already. Plus the vaccine and recovered will massively hinder spread, so getting half of them infected will not be as easy as all that.
But, even taking the 50% infected, the CFR for those in their 30s is about 0.1% and it drops further from there as you look at younger groups. So if, back of a cigarette pack, we use your numbers Leon, and assume that the unvaccinated are mostly under 40 and then take the highest CFR for that group, that gives us 2,500 additional deaths, or 28 a day.
Personal and family tragedies but not catastrophic.
Er, no
Malmesbury got his 5m unjabbed and vulnerable figure by adding together everyone not vaxxed and OVER 40
Mr. Above, if BLM says 'get on your knees' and Starmer does it, I'm not sure it's a huge stretch to view that as him kneeling for BLM.
I didn't partake in the clapping for the NHS thing. If I had wandered outside at that time and started smacking my hands together, then claimed it was nothing to do with the NHS, would you believe that?
I'm sorry but this is just ignorant.
There's a difference between supporting the proposition "black lives matter" and the organisation "Black Lives Matter".
Clearly you've decided to hate both 'cos of "culture war reasons" or whatever. I'm sorry, but it's pathetic.
I think it's fine that footballers take the knee before a match. Because although there are minor issues around it and some have decided not to, the overwhelming message, shorn of politics, is: don't be racist. And when the BLM politics has been forgotten, that will still be the message.
I think the important thing is that if some people wish to express that anti-racist message by using the same symbol Colin Kaepernick used, then that's okay.
Similarly, if people choose not to "take the knee" for whatever reason, then that's okay too.
F1 does it right. Some drivers do, some drivers don't, and that's cool.
Hatred of it is just irrational and clearly motivated by something else.
I think it's all part of the political correctness gone mad trope.
I am with you. Do it fine, we know what you mean, don't do it fine, you have your reasons.
As I said, I like that it's done virtually en masse at the footie because there are plenty of footie fans who could do with realising that many of their on field heroes are not white. And not all of them are Chelsea fans.
I went out yesterday, first time around and about shops, etc in a while. Plenty closed (central London) that said.
However, be very careful when you venture out because you will spend like a bastard when you do. Having not been out or spent money in person for so long I spent around £200 on I know not what, really. I didn't look at the price tags (no, I was not in the Jack Barclay showroom) and just was relieved to be spending with a human being.
So be careful out there.
Newcastle (and the Metrocentre) has more empty shop units than I've ever seen. Retail is not in a good place.
Shopping malls, having killed town centre shops, are dying in the US. Locally, two of three have been demolished and replaced with high end housing/office/grocery/restaurant spaces, and the remaining one is ⅓ empty with tyre shops, 7-11s and various nail salons taking up a lot of the space too - businesses that could never have afforded the rent just 5 years ago.
In Leamington M&S plans to close its large, two-storey town centre store and move to a ghastly peripheral 'retail park'. Matt Western MP is on the case:
Mr. Above, if BLM says 'get on your knees' and Starmer does it, I'm not sure it's a huge stretch to view that as him kneeling for BLM.
I didn't partake in the clapping for the NHS thing. If I had wandered outside at that time and started smacking my hands together, then claimed it was nothing to do with the NHS, would you believe that?
I'm sorry but this is just ignorant.
There's a difference between supporting the proposition "black lives matter" and the organisation "Black Lives Matter".
Clearly you've decided to hate both 'cos of "culture war reasons" or whatever. I'm sorry, but it's pathetic.
"If BLM says GET ON YOUR KNEES and Starmer does it ..."
Wow. I was assuming that Labour must have been cruising in London given the national polling. Starmer really didn't have a good election.
Bloody hell.
Labour lose control of the London Assembly to the Tories/LDs/Greens.
Didn't see that coming.
They've signed a deal with the devil. So much for the progressive alliance.
I'm astonished they've danced.
Khan must be very unpopular in the London assembly and members must also have decent cross party relationships.
Khan is generally very unpopular. He won because the Tory candidate was rubbish and there was enough inertia to keep people on side. A better Tory candidate would have won fairly easily IMO.
Interesting, thanks.
London is far from the write-off I thought it was. Clearly there is still potential there for a centre-right economic and administrative platform there to win out.
People seem to forget London had a Conservative Mayor as recently as five years ago. CCHQ got carried away with the expectation management and convinced themselves to write off the Capital.
Mr. Above, if BLM says 'get on your knees' and Starmer does it, I'm not sure it's a huge stretch to view that as him kneeling for BLM.
I didn't partake in the clapping for the NHS thing. If I had wandered outside at that time and started smacking my hands together, then claimed it was nothing to do with the NHS, would you believe that?
I'm sorry but this is just ignorant.
There's a difference between supporting the proposition "black lives matter" and the organisation "Black Lives Matter".
Clearly you've decided to hate both 'cos of "culture war reasons" or whatever. I'm sorry, but it's pathetic.
I think it's fine that footballers take the knee before a match. Because although there are minor issues around it and some have decided not to, the overwhelming message, shorn of politics, is: don't be racist. And when the BLM politics has been forgotten, that will still be the message.
Mr. Above, if BLM says 'get on your knees' and Starmer does it, I'm not sure it's a huge stretch to view that as him kneeling for BLM.
I didn't partake in the clapping for the NHS thing. If I had wandered outside at that time and started smacking my hands together, then claimed it was nothing to do with the NHS, would you believe that?
I'm sorry but this is just ignorant.
There's a difference between supporting the proposition "black lives matter" and the organisation "Black Lives Matter".
Clearly you've decided to hate both 'cos of "culture war reasons" or whatever. I'm sorry, but it's pathetic.
I think it's fine that footballers take the knee before a match. Because although there are minor issues around it and some have decided not to, the overwhelming message, shorn of politics, is: don't be racist. And when the BLM politics has been forgotten, that will still be the message.
I think the important thing is that if some people wish to express that anti-racist message by using the same symbol Colin Kaepernick used, then that's okay.
Similarly, if people choose not to "take the knee" for whatever reason, then that's okay too.
F1 does it right. Some drivers do, some drivers don't, and that's cool.
Hatred of it is just irrational and clearly motivated by something else.
I think it's all part of the political correctness gone mad trope.
I am with you. Do it fine, we know what you mean, don't do it fine, you have your reasons.
As I said, I like that it's done virtually en masse at the footie because there are plenty of footie fans who could do with realising that many of their on field heroes are not white. And not all of them are Chelsea fans.
Yes, I know that might be way off being enough to win but it's still better than him trying to be something he's not.
The problem in politics is that it is very hard to get to the top by being yourself. When you are at the bottom of the political pile, being yourself is a one-way passport to being marked out as a troublemaker rather than a team player.
Therefore the politicians that eventually climb up to the top have been acting for all of their career. It’s an unusually adaptable individual who can, as they gradually rise, return to projecting a more genuine persona.
Having entered politics late and relatively senior, you’d think it would be easier for Starmer. But perhaps he is being himself.
What is the reason for the difference between ONS and NIMS population data? Do they account for high levels of migration in the last year (in and out)?
This here comment of mine is not targeted at anyone on here - honest guv - but I do sense that for some the gesture is particularly upsetting because it smacks of supplication to the Black Man.
Sorry. Nonsense. Only in your mind.
Well there's no doubt - since it's widely expressed - that the 'supplicant' look of taking the knee gets a lot of goats.
Now none of these goats will come out and say, "Yeah, making white people grovel and kneel for BLM, trying to turn the tables innit, well they can fuck right off!"
But what makes you think there's none of that going on? There's some real rage out there about this gesture, remember, and some of those most angry are ... interesting people.
Are you 100% sure it's all due to irritation at virtue signaling and dislike of Marxism? I'm not.
I think you are overanalysing it, and so too are those that are against it. Although not a Labour supporter, I quite like Starmer and I think a lot of people are underestimating him on the basis of polls in a strange time, but I think he looked a bit silly genuflecting. he needs a better spin doctor.
Not sure I am. I'm only suggesting there's a bit of this around in certain quarters.
I agree on the staged "kneeling in office" shot. Bit wooden and inauthentic looking.
You just summed Starmer up
Bit wooden and inauthentic looking.
Yep. Fair cop. It is an issue. For me, I prefer somebody with decorum because it shows they don't have the sort of insecure narcissism or inbred entitlement that makes them assume the world needs and wants to be exposed to lots of their "personality" on a regular basis. But I think I'm in a minority on this and in any case I accept that in these Reality TV days a political leader who is low key is at a tremendous disadvantage.
I hope Starmer can start to relax and unzip from here. But it will be hard because this requires confidence and his confidence must be at a low ebb. He'll be feeling down and emotionally vulnerable, and this could mean he either goes more into his shell or tries to burst out of it in a way that looks a bit crazed and - oh no it's that word again - inauthentic.
Tough times.
Something I noticed about Sir Keir the other day that encapsulates his ability to annoy both sides whilst trying to do the right thing & not being a bad bloke
He’s a vegetarian
Who eats fish
Is there anything you don't know about "Sir Keir"?
We’re on course, I believe, for the coldest May in recorded history
Slightly surprising it’s not bigger news
Following the coldest April in 100 years. What happened to global warming?
Rebranded as "climate change", at least in part to pre-empt fallacious comments like this one, which confuse short-term noise with the long-term signal.
Although if we had the hottest April in 100 years and the hottest May ever then I'm fairly sure there would be many news stories about climate change. When it is the coldest, not a word.
Mr. Above, if BLM says 'get on your knees' and Starmer does it, I'm not sure it's a huge stretch to view that as him kneeling for BLM.
I didn't partake in the clapping for the NHS thing. If I had wandered outside at that time and started smacking my hands together, then claimed it was nothing to do with the NHS, would you believe that?
I'm sorry but this is just ignorant.
There's a difference between supporting the proposition "black lives matter" and the organisation "Black Lives Matter".
Clearly you've decided to hate both 'cos of "culture war reasons" or whatever. I'm sorry, but it's pathetic.
I think it's fine that footballers take the knee before a match. Because although there are minor issues around it and some have decided not to, the overwhelming message, shorn of politics, is: don't be racist. And when the BLM politics has been forgotten, that will still be the message.
I think the important thing is that if some people wish to express that anti-racist message by using the same symbol Colin Kaepernick used, then that's okay.
Similarly, if people choose not to "take the knee" for whatever reason, then that's okay too.
F1 does it right. Some drivers do, some drivers don't, and that's cool.
Hatred of it is just irrational and clearly motivated by something else.
I think it's all part of the political correctness gone mad trope.
I am with you. Do it fine, we know what you mean, don't do it fine, you have your reasons.
As I said, I like that it's done virtually en masse at the footie because there are plenty of footie fans who could do with realising that many of their on field heroes are not white. And not all of them are Chelsea fans.
And again. You're just showing off now, aren't you.
John Burn-Murdoch @jburnmurdoch NEW: this chart is important
It’s early days, but there are signs that the vaccines may be working against the Indian variant B.1.617.2
Yes, all of these "concerned" experts have yet to present any evidence of vaccine escape. It's just one last push by those who want us all locked away for our own good to conquer death.
I’ve done a fair bit of reading on this variant, now.
The main ‘concern’ is not vaccine evasion, but extra transmissibility. We’re almost sure this version of the bug is more infectious, probably more infectious than Kentish Corona. But whether the variant is 30% or 50% more transmissible will be crucial. 30% and we’ll likely be OK. We can manage. 50% could crush the NHS - given the millions we still need to vax
These were the same modellers that basically just decided that the vaccine rollout would stop and no one else would develop neutralising antibodies from vaccines.
Honestly the doom mongering scientists just need to be ignored. We have vaccines, we have evidence that the Indian variant doesn't escape the vaccines and we are vaccinating at an incredible rate. Additionally there's loads of evidence that the vaccines prevent the spread of COVID which brings the cumulative rate of reduction in hospitalisations down hugely.
Vaccines, not lockdown will be the way out of this and we have them. Everything else is noise.
(I'm not going for another round of our "appropriateness of worst case scenario forecasts debate!)
But I would expect that the 'possible local problems if 50% more transmissive' headlines are based on the worst case models which - as we do agree - will be using unrealistically pessimistic assumptions, such as very little effect of vaccines on onwards transmission if infected.
It's an out-there possibility, perhaps, in some places. If the stars align in exactly the wrong way. The kind of freak universe in which Labour have a 13% national poll lead next Tuesday.
Last time the models simply assumed that no one new would be vaccinated. It's complete garbage modelling, not even a worse case scenario it's literally a false input.
1000 deaths per day when we have vaccinated as many people as we have is in the impossible pile, not in the "if the stars align" pile. This variant does not evade vaccines. These models are garbage and whatever justification you have for them being produced is public sector Stockholm syndrome of politicians asking for specific outcomes to be produced.
Malmesbury says there are 5m vulnerable unvaccinated in the UK
If half of them catch the Indian variant over the summer as we unlockdown that’s 2.5m cases. We can expect 10% of those to be serious enough to require hospitalisation. 250,000 people in hospital. A lot.
1% will die. 25,000 people.
Summer is 90 days long (actually 2 in the UK but whatever)
25,000 divided by 90 is 277 deaths a day. Quite plausible
So, nowhere near 1000 deaths a day but probably bad enough that HMG would wearily lock us all down again
Some will have had covid already. Plus the vaccine and recovered will massively hinder spread, so getting half of them infected will not be as easy as all that.
But, even taking the 50% infected, the CFR for those in their 30s is about 0.1% and it drops further from there as you look at younger groups. So if, back of a cigarette pack, we use your numbers Leon, and assume that the unvaccinated are mostly under 40 and then take the highest CFR for that group, that gives us 2,500 additional deaths, or 28 a day.
Personal and family tragedies but not catastrophic.
Er, no
Malmesbury got his 5m unjabbed and vulnerable figure by adding together everyone not vaxxed and OVER 40
The CFR for these guys is 1% at least, very likely higher (can’t be arsed to do the maths)
Thanks for the correction. From comparisons of those with antibodies versus those vaccinated, we can probably safely assume that one third of these 5m have been exposed and have some level of protection against further infection, morbidity and mortality.
Interestingly, the head of the CDC was very bullish yesterday on how the fully vaccinated are extremely unlikely to be able to infect others.
Wow. I was assuming that Labour must have been cruising in London given the national polling. Starmer really didn't have a good election.
Bloody hell.
Labour lose control of the London Assembly to the Tories/LDs/Greens.
Didn't see that coming.
They've signed a deal with the devil. So much for the progressive alliance.
I'm astonished they've danced.
Khan must be very unpopular in the London assembly and members must also have decent cross party relationships.
Khan is generally very unpopular. He won because the Tory candidate was rubbish and there was enough inertia to keep people on side. A better Tory candidate would have won fairly easily IMO.
Interesting, thanks.
London is far from the write-off I thought it was. Clearly there is still potential there for a centre-right economic and administrative platform there to win out.
People seem to forget London had a Conservative Mayor as recently as five years ago. CCHQ got carried away with the expectation management and convinced themselves to write off the Capital.
Nah, it's more of a strategic thing. Targeting the Red Wall opens up ~50+ seats that can be won with suitable policy shifting, at the cost of probably losing a few London seats. Conversely, the policy shifts required to make progress in London (suburbs - the inner city is totally lost to Labour) would open up maybe 10 seats and probably lose more in the rest of the country. It makes absolute sense for the Tories to give up on London for the time being, and no sense at all for Labour to continue to set policy based on it.
This here comment of mine is not targeted at anyone on here - honest guv - but I do sense that for some the gesture is particularly upsetting because it smacks of supplication to the Black Man.
Sorry. Nonsense. Only in your mind.
Well there's no doubt - since it's widely expressed - that the 'supplicant' look of taking the knee gets a lot of goats.
Now none of these goats will come out and say, "Yeah, making white people grovel and kneel for BLM, trying to turn the tables innit, well they can fuck right off!"
But what makes you think there's none of that going on? There's some real rage out there about this gesture, remember, and some of those most angry are ... interesting people.
Are you 100% sure it's all due to irritation at virtue signaling and dislike of Marxism? I'm not.
I think you are overanalysing it, and so too are those that are against it. Although not a Labour supporter, I quite like Starmer and I think a lot of people are underestimating him on the basis of polls in a strange time, but I think he looked a bit silly genuflecting. he needs a better spin doctor.
Not sure I am. I'm only suggesting there's a bit of this around in certain quarters.
I agree on the staged "kneeling in office" shot. Bit wooden and inauthentic looking.
You just summed Starmer up
Bit wooden and inauthentic looking.
Yep. Fair cop. It is an issue. For me, I prefer somebody with decorum because it shows they don't have the sort of insecure narcissism or inbred entitlement that makes them assume the world needs and wants to be exposed to lots of their "personality" on a regular basis. But I think I'm in a minority on this and in any case I accept that in these Reality TV days a political leader who is low key is at a tremendous disadvantage.
I hope Starmer can start to relax and unzip from here. But it will be hard because this requires confidence and his confidence must be at a low ebb. He'll be feeling down and emotionally vulnerable, and this could mean he either goes more into his shell or tries to burst out of it in a way that looks a bit crazed and - oh no it's that word again - inauthentic.
Tough times.
Something I noticed about Sir Keir the other day that encapsulates his ability to annoy both sides whilst trying to do the right thing & not being a bad bloke
He’s a vegetarian
Who eats fish
Is there anything you don't know about "Sir Keir"?
Plenty. But I think it’s fair to say he annoys people on both sides of the political spectrum by trying to be a bit of everything, and this sums it up
Plenty of people, especially old school working class types, roll their eyes when a bloke says he’s a vegetarian. And almost all vegetarians would think eating fish disallows you from calling yourself one
We’re on course, I believe, for the coldest May in recorded history
Slightly surprising it’s not bigger news
Following the coldest April in 100 years. What happened to global warming?
Well for starters the UK is a tiny bit of the globe. Its only two months. And weather not climate...
And global warming predicts the UK will get colder ...
Yes. One reason the silence surprises me is that this unprecedented cold actually supports the climate change thesis. Many of the Monbiots predicted that melting ice and changing oceans would weaken the Gulf Stream, making Britain more prone to blocking, continental weather, probably much colder winters but the odd weird heatwave
This here comment of mine is not targeted at anyone on here - honest guv - but I do sense that for some the gesture is particularly upsetting because it smacks of supplication to the Black Man.
Sorry. Nonsense. Only in your mind.
Well there's no doubt - since it's widely expressed - that the 'supplicant' look of taking the knee gets a lot of goats.
Now none of these goats will come out and say, "Yeah, making white people grovel and kneel for BLM, trying to turn the tables innit, well they can fuck right off!"
But what makes you think there's none of that going on? There's some real rage out there about this gesture, remember, and some of those most angry are ... interesting people.
Are you 100% sure it's all due to irritation at virtue signaling and dislike of Marxism? I'm not.
I think you are overanalysing it, and so too are those that are against it. Although not a Labour supporter, I quite like Starmer and I think a lot of people are underestimating him on the basis of polls in a strange time, but I think he looked a bit silly genuflecting. he needs a better spin doctor.
Not sure I am. I'm only suggesting there's a bit of this around in certain quarters.
I agree on the staged "kneeling in office" shot. Bit wooden and inauthentic looking.
You just summed Starmer up
Bit wooden and inauthentic looking.
Yep. Fair cop. It is an issue. For me, I prefer somebody with decorum because it shows they don't have the sort of insecure narcissism or inbred entitlement that makes them assume the world needs and wants to be exposed to lots of their "personality" on a regular basis. But I think I'm in a minority on this and in any case I accept that in these Reality TV days a political leader who is low key is at a tremendous disadvantage.
I hope Starmer can start to relax and unzip from here. But it will be hard because this requires confidence and his confidence must be at a low ebb. He'll be feeling down and emotionally vulnerable, and this could mean he either goes more into his shell or tries to burst out of it in a way that looks a bit crazed and - oh no it's that word again - inauthentic.
Tough times.
Something I noticed about Sir Keir the other day that encapsulates his ability to annoy both sides whilst trying to do the right thing & not being a bad bloke
He’s a vegetarian
Who eats fish
Jeez. Someone needs to show him Seaspiracy. Pronto.
Comments
The common theme is narcissism.
I will give you an example of a corbyn policy that would actively hurt the left behind
The taking 10% of every company with more than 250 employees
The owners that 10% will be stolen from is mostly us and our pension funds making us all poorer in the long run and the pittance allocated back to employees would not even begin to cover the effect on their pensions. It would also deter companies from setting up in britain thus costing jobs and tax revenue which would mean we all had to pay more tax to cover the short fall.
There you go a corbyn policy that would hurt the left behind, don't even get me started on waspi women or free broadband which were equally corrosive
The people responsible for this live in the following council wards.....
You win.
They also said that if people have spoken to their GP - which can be by phone - to discuss the risks before their vaccination appointment, then they can have the AZN at the centre. I have made the point that this requirement is ridiculous if no-one knows about it in advance and also that GPs can be very difficult to contact right now.
They are also saying the same as the IOW Trust, that a glitch in the national booking system has allowed a batch of under 40s to book appointments earlier than they should have been, and they aren’t ready.
Khan must be very unpopular in the London assembly and members must also have decent cross party relationships.
A senior councillor round my way a few years ago got interviewed by the BBC about a local mess, and the interviewer said it was one of the best apologies he'd heard. The key was he said straight up the council had cocked up (in those words), and then sought to equivocate. People remember the former part.
But if people need help.
http://www.basicinstructions.net/basic-instructions/2016/2/2/how-to-apologize-without-accepting-any-blame.html
Edit:
Plan A: I'm sorry I was caught
Plan B: I'm sorry you're reacting this way
Plan C: I'm sorry the situation is what it is
Most politicians (and a union official of that rank is a politician in my book) go for B. It's dumb and insulting. It's not apologising if you maintain you did nothing wrong. If you think that, have the balls to just say so.
0-14 0.008%
15-44 0.040%
45-64 0.657%
65-74 7.106%
75-84 18.889%
85+ 30.551%
Yes, ludicrous precision, but hey...
and yes that means a 30% chance of dying for an 85+ person. Could be worse - https://idpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40249-020-00785-1
The truth that everything you have believed about SAGE's motivation, about lockdown's efficacy and about vaccination setting you free is not really true.
Aside from the govt attempt at healing wounds between communities which is all well and good he posits that an apology which decontextualises the "original sin" is in effect saying that there are immutable and eternal moral values which hold at all times and are absolute rather than relative. These must, therefore, emanate from outside our human sphere.
Which is pretty much the position that religions hold as self-evident.
Racism has nothing to do with the left/right spectrum, its more of a horseshoe.
I hope Starmer can start to relax and unzip from here. But it will be hard because this requires confidence and his confidence must be at a low ebb. He'll be feeling down and emotionally vulnerable, and this could mean he either goes more into his shell or tries to burst out of it in a way that looks a bit crazed and - oh no it's that word again - inauthentic.
Tough times.
The claims about this just don't hold any water and the scientists are simply giving zero COVID one last push before unlockdown so they can keep everyone locked up a fearful of whatever variant they deem to be a risk.
It's time for them to present their evidence to the public, not release alarming headlines about data models they've produced which are intended to get specific results.
Yes, I know that might be way off being enough to win but it's still better than him trying to be something he's not.
I would also like to take this opportunity to apologise for the Roman Invasion and the slaughter of the Iceni.
London is far from the write-off I thought it was. Clearly there is still potential there for a centre-right economic and administrative platform there to win out.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/lner-train-conductors-ladies-and-gentleman-complaint-non-binary-passenger-b935093.html
Doesn't often work because most people haven't thought about it and lack imagination.
There's a difference between supporting the proposition "black lives matter" and the organisation "Black Lives Matter".
Clearly you've decided to hate both 'cos of "culture war reasons" or whatever. I'm sorry, but it's pathetic.
Personal and family tragedies but not catastrophic.
Khan is far, far more like his predecessor than he would like to admit.
Admittedly, part of his problem is that he is absolutely hated by a large wing of his own party for not being pro-Corbyn enough (or at all, really). So, I sort of forgive him a bit for that.
Second point: I'm not, in the quoted post - in fact I put those things about 'updated info' and 'assumptions tested' in to try and avoid triggering you on this
I went out yesterday, first time around and about shops, etc in a while. Plenty closed (central London) that said.
However, be very careful when you venture out because you will spend like a bastard when you do. Having not been out or spent money in person for so long I spent around £200 on I know not what, really. I didn't look at the price tags (no, I was not in the Jack Barclay showroom) and just was relieved to be spending with a human being.
So be careful out there.
It will shortly be uploaded to LinkedIn.
https://road.cc/content/news/backers-london-ltns-outnumber-opponents-three-one-281961
(i) Those driven primarily by hatred of our cultural institutions, using a high profile racist murder in America as a form of emotional blackmail to subvert them.
(ii) Those driven primarily by hatred of racism, using a high profile racist murder in America to emote and give voice to this.
You clearly think (i) dominates. I think (ii).
Slightly surprising it’s not bigger news
Similarly, if people choose not to "take the knee" for whatever reason, then that's okay too.
F1 does it right. Some drivers do, some drivers don't, and that's cool.
Hatred of it is just irrational and clearly motivated by something else.
He’s a vegetarian
Who eats fish
Malmesbury got his 5m unjabbed and vulnerable figure by adding together everyone not vaxxed and OVER 40
‘40-44 1,790,882
45-49 1,085,301
50-54 703,903
55-59 562,698
60-64 394,282
65-69 246,850
70-74 171,279
75-79 101,661
80+ 142,568’
The CFR for these guys is 1% at least, very likely higher (can’t be arsed to do the maths)
I am with you. Do it fine, we know what you mean, don't do it fine, you have your reasons.
As I said, I like that it's done virtually en masse at the footie because there are plenty of footie fans who could do with realising that many of their on field heroes are not white. And not all of them are Chelsea fans.
https://www.kenilworthweeklynews.co.uk/business/ms-reaction-store-closures-in-leamington-and-warwick-would-be-a-severe-blow-to-the-vitality-of-our-town-centres-says-mp-3224175
The BBC tells me the weather right now in the Isle of Wight is pretty much identical. 12C, and grey
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/8533717
If you can swan about in shirtsleeves in 12C I salute your Inner Geordie
Therefore the politicians that eventually climb up to the top have been acting for all of their career. It’s an unusually adaptable individual who can, as they gradually rise, return to projecting a more genuine persona.
Having entered politics late and relatively senior, you’d think it would be easier for Starmer. But perhaps he is being himself.
Interestingly, the head of the CDC was very bullish yesterday on how the fully vaccinated are extremely unlikely to be able to infect others.
Plenty of people, especially old school working class types, roll their eyes when a bloke says he’s a vegetarian. And almost all vegetarians would think eating fish disallows you from calling yourself one
The Gulf Stream IS weakening. See my link below
Laurence Fox hinted on radio today that Reclaim are going to run a candidate there.....
Might take a few hundred off the tories in a close election?
Just sayin'