Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Local lockdowns by stealth – it is all looking rather chaotic – politicalbetting.com

245

Comments

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,649
    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national booking system is now accepting 30 and 31 year olds, at least a few of my friends that age have just been able to book appointments.

    The headline site still says 32
    The backend update happens the day before, usually just before the end of the business day.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    Brom said:

    Fenman said:

    Brom said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I cant see any of this affecting Chesham & Amersham. I'm barely noticing whatever I should be annoyed about and I'm more political engaged than 95% of the population. We'll be opening up 4 days after the by-election so if the weather is decent too the Tories will win at a canter
    I hope you're not a betting man. The purpose of by election campaigns is to engage with the public. The Lib Dems are pretty good at that so while 95% might not be engaged with the issues, I can guarantee you that the honest burghers of Amersham and Chesham will be.
    I am a betting man but I've stated on here a few days ago why I don't think Chesham & Amersham is fertile Lib Dem ground, and it doesn't look like the timing is good for them either. Esher & Walton this ain't.
    I would have thought it would depend on whether there is something local that the LibDems can campaign against: the closing of a hospital, or a new housing estate, something like that.

    It's that ability to find something and say to voters "hey, make your voice heard re xxx... and it's not going to affect the running of the country..."

  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,231
    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    Anyone is entitled to inspect the marked register, for either electoral or research purposes, and anyone who has been a candidate is entitled to ask for a copy, for a small fee. It’s a useful safeguard against fraud, enabling people who have been involved with the campaign to cross-check against their records of deaths, house moves, etc. and also to see which postal votes came back. And it is exceptionally useful information for any campaigner - for example if I stood again, given the low turnout it would make a lot of sense to canvass first (or only) those who have voted before.

    By road, turnout in my patch varied from 20% to over 70%, which is also useful information in terms of knowing the areas most worthwhile to campaign.

    But you’re right that most ordinary voters have no idea that whether or not they voted is public information. Now and again I used to enjoy myself on the doorstep with the odd voter who claimed, just to get rid of you, that they never ever voted...

    The police and secret service are entitled to inspect the ballot papers and record of who each was issued to. The details are all on the EC website if you know where to look....
    Wow, certainly had no idea about the last bit!
    The police makes sense if they are investigating electoral fraud and I would assume that they can't just look at them at whim but only for an active investigation.

    Frankly political parties shouldn't, we already have turnout issues and only canvassing those that vote isn't going to help them. Parties should be blinded to this information so they have to try and persuade everyone to vote.
    I have been told that certain councils used to turn over lists of those who voted for the CPGB to the government as a matter of course while other councils flatly refused any such request.

    As I understand things, your ballot is not secret in the sense that absolutely no-one can tell who you voted for - if someone is willing to do the work of cross-checking the various paper registers against an individual ballot then any individual vote can be identified. But it’s not possible without access to the paper records & the votes themselves, and putting those together would normally require a court order. Presumably the compliant councils were making a quiet note of ballot numbers of “suspect” votes & looking them up in the paper copies of the register where the ballot ids were recorded during the vote later.
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,884
    edited May 2021
    TimS said:

    Vaccines aren't the only thing on our side this time. We have the season too. It's been utterly miserable, as Leon in particular has been letting you know, and I'm sure that has kept people indoors much more than usual in late May, breathing all over each other. But the weather is turning moderately warmer and drier from later this week.

    We know the virus is seasonal in the UK. That is, I'm 99% sure, because of the effect on behaviour of summer weather on people here. We spend much more time, especially social time, outdoors. Unlike in very hot countries with air conditioning. There will be meet ups over the bank holiday weekend but they will be barbecues. Massive amounts of barbecues as it will be the first suitable weekend of the season. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a resumption of falling case numbers from early next week onwards. Keep a look out on the Zoe app.

    Yup, even if viral seasonality is unknown, human activity is known to be.

    The first wave was well in place in Feb and certainly into early March. The first lockdown extended into the nice weather, sure, but the first few weekends were cold and one was very miserable indeed.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,675
    TimS said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Vaccines aren't the only thing on our side this time. We have the season too. It's been utterly miserable, as Leon in particular has been letting you know, and I'm sure that has kept people indoors much more than usual in late May, breathing all over each other. But the weather is turning moderately warmer and drier from later this week.

    We know the virus is seasonal in the UK. That is, I'm 99% sure, because of the effect on behaviour of summer weather on people here. We spend much more time, especially social time, outdoors. Unlike in very hot countries with air conditioning. There will be meet ups over the bank holiday weekend but they will be barbecues. Massive amounts of barbecues as it will be the first suitable weekend of the season. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a resumption of falling case numbers from early next week onwards. Keep a look out on the Zoe app.

    Last i looked the models don't factor in seasonality. A fact which apparently was only made widespread when a 2nd year undergraduate maths student looked into them.
    I am not much convinced by seasonality. Our first wave was in the rather nice spring weather, as was Spain, Italy etc. We had an autumn spike then the Christmas one.

    But looking at other countries, there doesn't seem to be a strong seasonality, when taking in local climates.
    It was nice spring weather during a lot of the lockdown but the seeds of the big surge were sown in early March. I remember the first weekend of lockdown doing a "local walk" and there was sleet in the air. By then the damage was done.

    Despite progressive opening up through late spring and summer cases stayed stable. They rose again in Autumn. Tellingly the big outbreaks during the summer were in places where people worked or lived in close quarters indoors: meat processing plants, sweatshops, fruit pickers' dorms.

    It's very visible how differently people socialise in the warmer months in Britain - outdoors rather than in. Particularly at multi-family and mass gatherings. In other hotter climates like Brazil or Southern US it's so hot everyone stays indoors in the air con. So of course the seasonality pattern looks different. I'm not a buyer of the Vitamin D idea (though perhaps it plays a part), I think it's simply behavioural.
    Certainly appears true from my experience travelling last September, when southern Germans and Italians were still socialising and eating outdoors, meanwhile the second wave was gathering pace in the UK as Brits had moved back indoors with the autumn weather. By the time I got back home, the weather in Southern Europe had shifted and their case numbers sharply increased.
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,884

    All restrictions should be guidance only. The days of the government saying you MUST do X should be over. Replace it instead with you SHOULD do X instead and let educated adults make their own decisions.

    It people choose not to follow the advice then accept that. It is their choice!

    CONFEWSIN

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
  • MaffewMaffew Posts: 229
    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national booking system is now accepting 30 and 31 year olds, at least a few of my friends that age have just been able to book appointments.

    The headline site still says 32
    The backend of the site updates first. I booked mine last week at least a day before the front page updated to include my age group.
  • MaffewMaffew Posts: 229
    TimS said:

    The next stage I've always suspected will be to move from Covid-19 to other areas of public health where some form of partial social distancing or seasonal measures to curb flu could take hold. The trouble is that side of the argument can always play the "we just want to save lives" card, and will be able to show - via the experience of this pandemic - that these measures save lives.

    There is a point at which sensible policies to prevent health system meltdown and protect people shade into excessive long term control over the population. I don't subscribe to the slippery slope theory because it's perfectly possible to make balanced judgments on the risks, but we are getting to a point with population immunity levels where things will need to normalise.

    Thankfully there are some stirrings in the Liberal centre / centre-left of some of the old anti-authoritarian instinct. Dislike of both left and right wing authoritarianism is one reason I joined the Lib Dems, so it was a bit worrying seeing them seem to side wholly with the indy-SAGE worldview last year. I think (hope) that was just an artefact of the chaotic early months of the government's handling of the pandemic.

    There are stirrings in the Lib Dems, but I'm not sure how far they're going. I nearly tore up my membership card when Layla Moran was criticising the government for not being clear enough about when you can hug your grandparents a couple of weeks ago. The only thing stopping me leaving the party at the moment is the feeling that all of the other parties are more authoritarian.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,675
    edited May 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    Brom said:

    Fenman said:

    Brom said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I cant see any of this affecting Chesham & Amersham. I'm barely noticing whatever I should be annoyed about and I'm more political engaged than 95% of the population. We'll be opening up 4 days after the by-election so if the weather is decent too the Tories will win at a canter
    I hope you're not a betting man. The purpose of by election campaigns is to engage with the public. The Lib Dems are pretty good at that so while 95% might not be engaged with the issues, I can guarantee you that the honest burghers of Amersham and Chesham will be.
    I am a betting man but I've stated on here a few days ago why I don't think Chesham & Amersham is fertile Lib Dem ground, and it doesn't look like the timing is good for them either. Esher & Walton this ain't.
    I would have thought it would depend on whether there is something local that the LibDems can campaign against: the closing of a hospital, or a new housing estate, something like that.

    It's that ability to find something and say to voters "hey, make your voice heard re xxx... and it's not going to affect the running of the country..."

    I’m not hearing that any concerted campaigning is actually happening. If the LibDem effort is confined to @Barnesian wandering around Chalfont trying to stir up revolution then, with the greatest respect to him, I think punters can safely put their life savings on a comfortable Tory hold (@1.05 on Betfair).

    Voters haven’t even had a betting letter from OGH, which shows how far behind the LibDems must be.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,675
    edited May 2021
    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    You haven’t been fully reading my posts if you think this is why I paid a small amount of £ to see who had voted in my ward. But it’s about more than targeted canvassing.

    I apologise to any PB’ers who thought that British elections were still about each candidate making a speech to their electors from a platform in the village square and the best man winning....
  • pingping Posts: 3,297
    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    I agree.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,570
    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national booking system is now accepting 30 and 31 year olds, at least a few of my friends that age have just been able to book appointments.

    The headline site still says 32
    I think it’s well known that the back end changes in advance of the announce, and if you are close you can often get through before officially announced.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    You haven’t been fully reading my posts if you think this is why I paid a small amount of £ to see who had voted in my ward.
    I don't think its because you are checking on electoral fraud certainly. But when I suggested that parties shouldnt have access electoral fraud prevention is what you raised
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,322
    rcs1000 said:

    The terms of the debate here show that all that's needed is a covid variant that even partially evades the vaccines and we are back in lockdown for three months.

    Then another round of vaccines.

    Then another three months lockdown

    Once you decided to play the game, you became subject to the rules.

    In the US, covid restrictions have been dismantled in most states. In Denmark, pretty much all restrictions have been lifted, and even countries like France are unlocking.

    Why do you think the political pressures are so different in the UK?
    Is our government more out of touch with the younger half of the population who are more impacted by lockdown restrictions and holding back the economy?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,749
    It’s not getting less confusing either:

    Covid: No local lockdowns in Indian variant areas, say local leaders
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57246973

    I think we should just conclude the entire machinery of government is currently run by totally incompetent fucktards, ignore them and move on.

    As with the guidelines on indoor singing, which are in fact not legally enforceable and are therefore simply being ignored.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,327
    rcs1000 said:

    The terms of the debate here show that all that's needed is a covid variant that even partially evades the vaccines and we are back in lockdown for three months.

    Then another round of vaccines.

    Then another three months lockdown

    Once you decided to play the game, you became subject to the rules.

    In the US, covid restrictions have been dismantled in most states. In Denmark, pretty much all restrictions have been lifted, and even countries like France are unlocking.

    Why do you think the political pressures are so different in the UK?
    It was odd to see people in the supermarket yesterday without masks. MD has been pretty much 100% mask-wearing indoors in public spaces up to this point.

    Even so, I'd say it was well less than 10% who availed themselves of the option to go maskless.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,385
    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national booking system is now accepting 30 and 31 year olds, at least a few of my friends that age have just been able to book appointments.

    The headline site still says 32
    They change the back-end the day before they update the front end.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    Interesting new article on UnHerd.

    "Alien life is out there
    American excitement over UFOs makes me think they might exist
    BY SEAN THOMAS"

    https://unherd.com/2021/05/alien-life-is-out-there/
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    You haven’t been fully reading my posts if you think this is why I paid a small amount of £ to see who had voted in my ward. But it’s about more than targeted canvassing.

    I apologise to any PB’ers who thought that British elections were still about each candidate making a speech to their electors from a platform in the village square and the best man winning....
    Gosh suggesting you shouldnt be able to just visit those you know voted last time and should make an effort to go speak to all voters === a platform on the village square

    Come back with a less pitiful strawman please
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,675
    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    You haven’t been fully reading my posts if you think this is why I paid a small amount of £ to see who had voted in my ward.
    I don't think its because you are checking on electoral fraud certainly. But when I suggested that parties shouldnt have access electoral fraud prevention is what you raised
    Call it a spin off benefit?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,574
    Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.

    @MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,822
    TimS said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Vaccines aren't the only thing on our side this time. We have the season too. It's been utterly miserable, as Leon in particular has been letting you know, and I'm sure that has kept people indoors much more than usual in late May, breathing all over each other. But the weather is turning moderately warmer and drier from later this week.

    We know the virus is seasonal in the UK. That is, I'm 99% sure, because of the effect on behaviour of summer weather on people here. We spend much more time, especially social time, outdoors. Unlike in very hot countries with air conditioning. There will be meet ups over the bank holiday weekend but they will be barbecues. Massive amounts of barbecues as it will be the first suitable weekend of the season. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a resumption of falling case numbers from early next week onwards. Keep a look out on the Zoe app.

    Last i looked the models don't factor in seasonality. A fact which apparently was only made widespread when a 2nd year undergraduate maths student looked into them.
    I am not much convinced by seasonality. Our first wave was in the rather nice spring weather, as was Spain, Italy etc. We had an autumn spike then the Christmas one.

    But looking at other countries, there doesn't seem to be a strong seasonality, when taking in local climates.
    It was nice spring weather during a lot of the lockdown but the seeds of the big surge were sown in early March. I remember the first weekend of lockdown doing a "local walk" and there was sleet in the air. By then the damage was done.

    Despite progressive opening up through late spring and summer cases stayed stable. They rose again in Autumn. Tellingly the big outbreaks during the summer were in places where people worked or lived in close quarters indoors: meat processing plants, sweatshops, fruit pickers' dorms.

    It's very visible how differently people socialise in the warmer months in Britain - outdoors rather than in. Particularly at multi-family and mass gatherings. In other hotter climates like Brazil or Southern US it's so hot everyone stays indoors in the air con. So of course the seasonality pattern looks different. I'm not a buyer of the Vitamin D idea (though perhaps it plays a part), I think it's simply behavioural.
    I don't think the poor in Brazil have Air-Con, or in India or Egypt etc.

    I think seasonality is dwarfed by other factors, if it exists at all.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,354
    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    You haven’t been fully reading my posts if you think this is why I paid a small amount of £ to see who had voted in my ward. But it’s about more than targeted canvassing.

    I apologise to any PB’ers who thought that British elections were still about each candidate making a speech to their electors from a platform in the village square and the best man winning....
    Or woman
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    ydoethur said:

    It’s not getting less confusing either:

    Covid: No local lockdowns in Indian variant areas, say local leaders
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57246973

    I think we should just conclude the entire machinery of government is currently run by totally incompetent fucktards, ignore them and move on.

    As with the guidelines on indoor singing, which are in fact not legally enforceable and are therefore simply being ignored.

    Yes but these are the f8cktards who have bossed your life more than almost any British government in history for 15 months.

    And you obeyed them to the letter.

    And defended them repeatedly, vociferously and at times aggressively from all criticism.

    So who is the bigger f8cktard, really?

  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,327
    Andy_JS said:

    Interesting new article on UnHerd.

    "Alien life is out there
    American excitement over UFOs makes me think they might exist
    BY SEAN THOMAS"

    https://unherd.com/2021/05/alien-life-is-out-there/

    Do we know this Sean Thomas character and is his writing style at all similar to any current posters?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,749
    Andy_JS said:

    Interesting new article on UnHerd.

    "Alien life is out there
    American excitement over UFOs makes me think they might exist
    BY SEAN THOMAS"

    https://unherd.com/2021/05/alien-life-is-out-there/

    That’s an amazing article.

    It’s got many things that @Leon has been saying in it.

    How has he persuaded a novelist of such erudition and eminence to endorse his views?

    Heck, it even reads like his stuff...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    In the words of Scott McNealy: you have no privacy, get over it.

    If this information wasn't available from the electoral roll, Google and Apple would sell it to you (as they know where you are at any time). And yes, I know you don't have a smartphone, and you've surgically disconnected any smart features from your car. But even the most privacy obsessed person is going to leave a digital trail. And yes, that means someone can work out who voted and who didn't.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,749
    edited May 2021

    ydoethur said:

    It’s not getting less confusing either:

    Covid: No local lockdowns in Indian variant areas, say local leaders
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57246973

    I think we should just conclude the entire machinery of government is currently run by totally incompetent fucktards, ignore them and move on.

    As with the guidelines on indoor singing, which are in fact not legally enforceable and are therefore simply being ignored.

    Yes but these are the f8cktards who have bossed your life more than almost any British government in history for 15 months.

    And you obeyed them to the letter.

    And defended them repeatedly, vociferously and at times aggressively from all criticism.

    So who is the bigger f8cktard, really?

    You, because you have clearly (a) not read or understood my posts, and (b) as a vaccine denier you are a huge part of the problem.

    Do you work for the DfE by any chance?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,327
    ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Interesting new article on UnHerd.

    "Alien life is out there
    American excitement over UFOs makes me think they might exist
    BY SEAN THOMAS"

    https://unherd.com/2021/05/alien-life-is-out-there/

    That’s an amazing article.

    It’s got many things that @Leon has been saying in it.

    How has he persuaded a novelist of such erudition and eminence to endorse his views?

    Heck, it even reads like his stuff...
    Are you accusing Sean Thomas of plagiarism?

    (PS I learnt a few years ago that it is indeed possible to plagiarize yourself).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,675
    edited May 2021
    TimT said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Interesting new article on UnHerd.

    "Alien life is out there
    American excitement over UFOs makes me think they might exist
    BY SEAN THOMAS"

    https://unherd.com/2021/05/alien-life-is-out-there/

    Do we know this Sean Thomas character and is his writing style at all similar to any current posters?
    That is such a dishonest article. Which calls into question the integrity of Unherd as a publisher.

    Following on from his previous Unherd article about ‘life in lockdown London’, when any modestly attentive PB’er will know that he spend most of the first lockdown on holiday in South Wales, regaling us all with tales of his coastal walks and suchlike. Whilst we were all obeying the law and staying at home.

    The claims in his latest article don’t stack up for anyone that cares to check his PB posts from February and March last year.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,154
    edited May 2021
    Andy_JS said:

    Interesting new article on UnHerd.

    "Alien life is out there
    American excitement over UFOs makes me think they might exist
    BY SEAN THOMAS"

    https://unherd.com/2021/05/alien-life-is-out-there/

    He should know...
    TimT said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Interesting new article on UnHerd.

    "Alien life is out there
    American excitement over UFOs makes me think they might exist
    BY SEAN THOMAS"

    https://unherd.com/2021/05/alien-life-is-out-there/

    Do we know this Sean Thomas character and is his writing style at all similar to any current posters?
    I hear that Sean Thomas is taking his post-COVID holiday at the Leo-Nine Community. It's like a compressed cat.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    In the words of Scott McNealy: you have no privacy, get over it.

    If this information wasn't available from the electoral roll, Google and Apple would sell it to you (as they know where you are at any time). And yes, I know you don't have a smartphone, and you've surgically disconnected any smart features from your car. But even the most privacy obsessed person is going to leave a digital trail. And yes, that means someone can work out who voted and who didn't.
    No car either. But no I doubt anyone could work out who I voted for because I leave little digital trail that can be connected to me. You probably could based on comments I made here and as you are site admin. I doubt any of the canvassers in my home constituency could however and I doubt you could work out who I voted for next election or if I abstained unless I mentioned it here
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,749
    edited May 2021
    TimT said:

    ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Interesting new article on UnHerd.

    "Alien life is out there
    American excitement over UFOs makes me think they might exist
    BY SEAN THOMAS"

    https://unherd.com/2021/05/alien-life-is-out-there/

    That’s an amazing article.

    It’s got many things that @Leon has been saying in it.

    How has he persuaded a novelist of such erudition and eminence to endorse his views?

    Heck, it even reads like his stuff...
    Are you accusing Sean Thomas of plagiarism?

    (PS I learnt a few years ago that it is indeed possible to plagiarize yourself).
    You only learned that a few years ago? Shakespeare knew it in the early 17th century!

    As for SeanT plagiarising anything, surely it’s more likely the other way around - that Leon saw his notes lying about somewhere and stole them?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Could Rob Roberts suspension from Parliament trigger a recall petition?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,749

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    You haven’t been fully reading my posts if you think this is why I paid a small amount of £ to see who had voted in my ward. But it’s about more than targeted canvassing.

    I apologise to any PB’ers who thought that British elections were still about each candidate making a speech to their electors from a platform in the village square and the best man winning....
    Or woman
    Thank you reg...
    I so nearly asked whether he wanted to be called Stan or Loretta...
  • glwglw Posts: 8,876
    MaxPB said:

    Scientist at PH Wales:


    Catherine MooreMicrobeDNAFlag of European Union
    @SmallRedOne
    ·
    7h
    The pandemic isn’t over, but we have to keep one step ahead because I think SARS-CoV-2 is with us now. The vaccines at the moment don’t look good enough for eradication plans and equity is still a major problem.

    Eradication? Really?!

    These people have got a screw loose. It took decades to eradicate polio. What does he suggest? Should we have intermittent lockdowns for the next 30 years while we vaccinate a generation of kids and younger people.
    I'm no expert, but from what I understand it would probably be easier to eradicate influenza and essentially nobody thinks that's on the cards.

    Obviously at some future date there likely will be a variant of the virus that makes COVID-19 a big problem again where we need to take drastic action, but it is likely years away not months. For now, if the vaccines work as well as they seem to do so, our best bet is to jab as many people as possible and get back to something very close to normality; bar regular vaccination, testing for COVID-19, and surveillance measures.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,327
    ydoethur said:

    TimT said:

    ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Interesting new article on UnHerd.

    "Alien life is out there
    American excitement over UFOs makes me think they might exist
    BY SEAN THOMAS"

    https://unherd.com/2021/05/alien-life-is-out-there/

    That’s an amazing article.

    It’s got many things that @Leon has been saying in it.

    How has he persuaded a novelist of such erudition and eminence to endorse his views?

    Heck, it even reads like his stuff...
    Are you accusing Sean Thomas of plagiarism?

    (PS I learnt a few years ago that it is indeed possible to plagiarize yourself).
    You only learned that a few years ago? Shakespeare knew it in the early 17th century!

    As for SeanT plagiarising anything, surely it’s more likely the other way around - that Leon saw his notes lying about somewhere and stole them?
    Never actually met Shakespeare, so missed out on the chance to learn that from him.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,354

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    You haven’t been fully reading my posts if you think this is why I paid a small amount of £ to see who had voted in my ward. But it’s about more than targeted canvassing.

    I apologise to any PB’ers who thought that British elections were still about each candidate making a speech to their electors from a platform in the village square and the best man winning....
    Or woman
    Thank you reg...
    I could not resist !!!!!!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,749
    TimT said:

    ydoethur said:

    TimT said:

    ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Interesting new article on UnHerd.

    "Alien life is out there
    American excitement over UFOs makes me think they might exist
    BY SEAN THOMAS"

    https://unherd.com/2021/05/alien-life-is-out-there/

    That’s an amazing article.

    It’s got many things that @Leon has been saying in it.

    How has he persuaded a novelist of such erudition and eminence to endorse his views?

    Heck, it even reads like his stuff...
    Are you accusing Sean Thomas of plagiarism?

    (PS I learnt a few years ago that it is indeed possible to plagiarize yourself).
    You only learned that a few years ago? Shakespeare knew it in the early 17th century!

    As for SeanT plagiarising anything, surely it’s more likely the other way around - that Leon saw his notes lying about somewhere and stole them?
    Never actually met Shakespeare, so missed out on the chance to learn that from him.
    Well, I gather he died earlier today, so we’ve all missed our chance now.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,354

    Result. My new boss has arranged to meet me at the office tomorrow to say hello before I start. 💪 Promising.

    Best of luck
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,154
    MaxPB said:

    Well, well, Pfizer has picked the UK for its new vaccine research centre. Hope we can leverage that into manufacturing as well rather than just more outsourcing if UK developed IP.

    This was part of their comment on the first one in Louisville last year:

    "It is very difficult to find a city where all the health care institutions are collaborating in research, and Pfizer recognized there was something different happening in Louisville, Kentucky. Because of our unique citywide collaborations, when we measure the incidence of disease in Louisville, you can extrapolate and say if this disease happens this often in Louisville, we can then say this is the incidence in the United States. This becomes very important as we are trying to study disease and develop new interventions,” said Julio Ramirez, Chief of UofL Infectious Diseases and Center Director. “To develop a vaccine, it is important to understand the overall population burden of disease that the vaccine is going to prevent: How common is this illness? Who are the patients that are at higher risk? These are the questions we will be addressing with the types of studies we are going to be doing in Louisville, Kentucky.”

    “Well-conducted epidemiological surveillance in adults is a critical component to understanding the effect that direct vaccination may have in reducing the cases and consequences of infectious diseases. In contrast to the well-established surveillance systems developed for pediatric immunization programs, surveillance systems in adults are less developed and disease burden data estimates are less precise,” said Nanette Cocero, Pfizer Vaccines Global President. “With a growing aging population around the world, we’re committed to further understanding how direct vaccination of adults may potentially help prevent certain infectious diseases.”

    Pfizer Vaccines is currently planning to establish a few additional Centers of Excellence for epidemiological research strategically located around the world in the coming years."
    https://investors.pfizer.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2020/Pfizer-Vaccines-Launches-Global-Centers-of-Excellence-Network-to-Conduct-Real-World-Research-on-Vaccine-Preventable-Diseases-Affecting-Adults/default.aspx
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,327
    glw said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scientist at PH Wales:


    Catherine MooreMicrobeDNAFlag of European Union
    @SmallRedOne
    ·
    7h
    The pandemic isn’t over, but we have to keep one step ahead because I think SARS-CoV-2 is with us now. The vaccines at the moment don’t look good enough for eradication plans and equity is still a major problem.

    Eradication? Really?!

    These people have got a screw loose. It took decades to eradicate polio. What does he suggest? Should we have intermittent lockdowns for the next 30 years while we vaccinate a generation of kids and younger people.
    I'm no expert, but from what I understand it would probably be easier to eradicate influenza and essentially nobody thinks that's on the cards.

    Obviously at some future date there likely will be a variant of the virus that makes COVID-19 a big problem again where we need to take drastic action, but it is likely years away not months. For now, if the vaccines work as well as they seem to do so, our best bet is to jab as many people as possible and get back to something very close to normality; bar regular vaccination, testing for COVID-19, and surveillance measures.
    You are right. There will be no eradicating COVID - there are too many animal reservoirs for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. To date research shows that it causes infections in upwards of 100 mammalian species. And it is constantly evolving in these reservoirs.

    There have been 3 variants in the last 2 decades that have required international action - SARS, MERS and COVID (don't forget the COVID virus is in fact SARS-CoV-2). But it is unlikely (not impossible) that any of them will be on the scale of the COVID pandemic in the near future.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,343
    IanB2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    We all don't know lots of things. The electoral register and marked register are made available to political parties. It isn't a secret, but I grant you that unless you are involved you may not know this.

    Every election we always get outcry that your vote can be determined by the number allocated to the ballot paper. This is in fact true. Your vote is not a secret in the sense that if your ballot paper is seen anytime after you have voted it can be determined that the paper belonged to you and therefore how you voted.

    The secrecy is maintained by the fact that your ballot paper can not easily be seen. Normally a judge has to order the opening of the ballot boxes after the count if there is an issue. During the count activist will be witnessing the papers being counted so in theory could work it out also, but in practice this is impossible as you only see a subset of votes and would have to memorize numbers and votes for each and every ballot paper you saw. When doing the verification part of the count this is often done upside down, much to the annoyance of the activists who are trying to do rough counts so as to determine where to put their checkers. So you only really get to see the ballot paper clearly for the main count.

    In the old days cameras weren't allowed to be used during the count. I don't know about now as everyone has one and I haven't been to a count in years.
    Cameras still aren’t supposed to be used.

    But you’re wrong on one point: verification is done paper face up, specifically to avoid anyone monitoring it seeing the ballot paper number.

    Despite voter bribery/intimidation having died a death pretty soon after the secret ballot was introduced, many of our electoral practices continue on the assumption that this is the principal threat to our democracy.
    I haven't been to a count for a very long time but when I did and I did an awful lot the verification used to be vote side up, then some started doing them with the vote facing the table. I remember because there was a lot of complaining about it by all the parties watching. We were going to see them anyway so what was the point, other than you could lose track of what ballot boxes they came out of, but again that shouldn't be an issue in terms of secrecy and it was useful in targeting where to put most of your activists and the progress if you knew which ballot box votes you were watching.

    Many decades ago we did use a polling agent when we knew another party (in fairness probably individuals not party) were attempting to vote using absentee voters. It was pathetic in the sense that they were going to win anyway and the number of votes that could be cast, unless you had an army of people willing to try it on was minimal. We used our canvas data to make the challenges. The first person challenged did a runner. The police weren't interested. That ended it I suspect because only one more challenge was made and that was someone who was going to be away, but didn't go in the end so was genuine.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Seems like the recall criteria include a 2 week suspension from Parliament as an option for starting a petition.

    Rob Roberts is facing a 6 week suspension, so should definitely count on that.

    So a recall petition seems plausible? A by-election in mid-terms in Delyn really ought to be a Labour Gain so could be an interesting by-election if it happens?

    Guessing the Tories should not be running Rob Roberts again if it does after these allegations. 😕
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,016
    The chairman of the National Trust has resigned. He was facing a vote of no confidence:

    https://twitter.com/RestoreTrustNT/status/1397229525843513348?s=20
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,675
    kjh said:

    IanB2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    We all don't know lots of things. The electoral register and marked register are made available to political parties. It isn't a secret, but I grant you that unless you are involved you may not know this.

    Every election we always get outcry that your vote can be determined by the number allocated to the ballot paper. This is in fact true. Your vote is not a secret in the sense that if your ballot paper is seen anytime after you have voted it can be determined that the paper belonged to you and therefore how you voted.

    The secrecy is maintained by the fact that your ballot paper can not easily be seen. Normally a judge has to order the opening of the ballot boxes after the count if there is an issue. During the count activist will be witnessing the papers being counted so in theory could work it out also, but in practice this is impossible as you only see a subset of votes and would have to memorize numbers and votes for each and every ballot paper you saw. When doing the verification part of the count this is often done upside down, much to the annoyance of the activists who are trying to do rough counts so as to determine where to put their checkers. So you only really get to see the ballot paper clearly for the main count.

    In the old days cameras weren't allowed to be used during the count. I don't know about now as everyone has one and I haven't been to a count in years.
    Cameras still aren’t supposed to be used.

    But you’re wrong on one point: verification is done paper face up, specifically to avoid anyone monitoring it seeing the ballot paper number.

    Despite voter bribery/intimidation having died a death pretty soon after the secret ballot was introduced, many of our electoral practices continue on the assumption that this is the principal threat to our democracy.
    I haven't been to a count for a very long time but when I did and I did an awful lot the verification used to be vote side up, then some started doing them with the vote facing the table. I remember because there was a lot of complaining about it by all the parties watching. We were going to see them anyway so what was the point, other than you could lose track of what ballot boxes they came out of, but again that shouldn't be an issue in terms of secrecy and it was useful in targeting where to put most of your activists and the progress if you knew which ballot box votes you were watching.

    Many decades ago we did use a polling agent when we knew another party (in fairness probably individuals not party) were attempting to vote using absentee voters. It was pathetic in the sense that they were going to win anyway and the number of votes that could be cast, unless you had an army of people willing to try it on was minimal. We used our canvas data to make the challenges. The first person challenged did a runner. The police weren't interested. That ended it I suspect because only one more challenge was made and that was someone who was going to be away, but didn't go in the end so was genuine.
    Ballot box verifications are done ballot paper face up.

    Postal vote verifications are done ballot paper face down.

    Those are the rules.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423

    Could Rob Roberts suspension from Parliament trigger a recall petition?

    Maybe.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,749

    The chairman of the National Trust has resigned. He was facing a vote of no confidence:

    https://twitter.com/RestoreTrustNT/status/1397229525843513348?s=20

    I’m disappointed they didn’t call the campaign Parker Must Fall.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,016
    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    In the words of Scott McNealy: you have no privacy, get over it.

    If this information wasn't available from the electoral roll, Google and Apple would sell it to you (as they know where you are at any time). And yes, I know you don't have a smartphone, and you've surgically disconnected any smart features from your car. But even the most privacy obsessed person is going to leave a digital trail. And yes, that means someone can work out who voted and who didn't.
    Why should we accept we have no privacy?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829

    The chairman of the National Trust has resigned. He was facing a vote of no confidence:

    https://twitter.com/RestoreTrustNT/status/1397229525843513348?s=20

    Really? Seems he was stepping down anyway after an unusual third term because pox.

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Ford/status/1397247693156765696

    "Fact check:
    His final term had been due to end in 2020, but a third exceptional term of office was agreed to provide stability to the organisation during the coronavirus crisis. In May 2021, the Trust announced that he would step down from his position in October this year."
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,749

    Seems like the recall criteria include a 2 week suspension from Parliament as an option for starting a petition.

    Rob Roberts is facing a 6 week suspension, so should definitely count on that.

    So a recall petition seems plausible? A by-election in mid-terms in Delyn really ought to be a Labour Gain so could be an interesting by-election if it happens?

    Guessing the Tories should not be running Rob Roberts again if it does after these allegations. 😕

    If the 2000 odd BP votes went back to Lab in a by-election - which is what they did for the Assembly - then yes, it should be a Labour gain if that happens.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,808
    rcs1000 said:

    The terms of the debate here show that all that's needed is a covid variant that even partially evades the vaccines and we are back in lockdown for three months.

    Then another round of vaccines.

    Then another three months lockdown

    Once you decided to play the game, you became subject to the rules.

    In the US, covid restrictions have been dismantled in most states. In Denmark, pretty much all restrictions have been lifted, and even countries like France are unlocking.

    Why do you think the political pressures are so different in the UK?
    Because the government deliberately went out to terrify people at the start of the pandemic over a disease with a 0.3% mortality rate. And it succeeded so well that opinion polls showed that Britons were the most terrified of the virus and most willing to support restrictions.
  • HuklirHuklir Posts: 1
    Why is Dom reframing the notion of "herd immunity"?
    A mass vaccination campaign is precisely about creating herd immunity. The idea is to achieve so much coverage as to leave the virus no other option but to die out or mutate and become harmless. That is how smallpox died out, for example.

    There is presumably a model that connects % vaccine coverage with R, or more specifically with what the value of R would be if there were no vaccination.

    What % vaccine coverage is thought to be required in order to achieve herd immunity against SARSCoV2?
    Does someone here know? Presumably the figure varies on various assumptions regarding variants, but still, can somebody post some ballpark figures. 60%? 90%? 95%?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    In the words of Scott McNealy: you have no privacy, get over it.

    If this information wasn't available from the electoral roll, Google and Apple would sell it to you (as they know where you are at any time). And yes, I know you don't have a smartphone, and you've surgically disconnected any smart features from your car. But even the most privacy obsessed person is going to leave a digital trail. And yes, that means someone can work out who voted and who didn't.
    Why should we accept we have no privacy?
    He is correct in that we have less and less privacy , what I reject is that is a reason why we shouldn't seek to keep as much privacy as we can. We will never have privacy from state actors however we can certainly do a lot to make it difficult for both state actors, and almost impossible for non state actors to track us. Most people do leave huge swathes of digital footprints that link up to a trackable whole person without realising it. A common one for example is keeping the same username from one forum to another.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,142
    Omnium said:

    Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.

    @MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?

    Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.

    Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,822
    edited May 2021
    Carnyx said:

    The chairman of the National Trust has resigned. He was facing a vote of no confidence:

    https://twitter.com/RestoreTrustNT/status/1397229525843513348?s=20

    Really? Seems he was stepping down anyway after an unusual third term because pox.

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Ford/status/1397247693156765696

    "Fact check:
    His final term had been due to end in 2020, but a third exceptional term of office was agreed to provide stability to the organisation during the coronavirus crisis. In May 2021, the Trust announced that he would step down from his position in October this year."
    So not a victim of Cancel Culture after all? 🤔
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,749
    Huklir said:

    Why is Dom reframing the notion of "herd immunity"?
    A mass vaccination campaign is precisely about creating herd immunity. The idea is to achieve so much coverage as to leave the virus no other option but to die out or mutate and become harmless. That is how smallpox died out, for example.

    There is presumably a model that connects % vaccine coverage with R, or more specifically with what the value of R would be if there were no vaccination.

    What % vaccine coverage is thought to be required in order to achieve herd immunity against SARSCoV2?
    Does someone here know? Presumably the figure varies on various assumptions regarding variants, but still, can somebody post some ballpark figures. 60%? 90%? 95%?

    Welcome.

    Malta is claiming success at 70%:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/05/25/malta-claims-herd-immunity-from-covid-19-with-70-of-its-adults-partially-vaccinated/?sh=329817347573

    And we can’t be far off that now.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,749
    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    The chairman of the National Trust has resigned. He was facing a vote of no confidence:

    https://twitter.com/RestoreTrustNT/status/1397229525843513348?s=20

    Really? Seems he was stepping down anyway after an unusual third term because pox.

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Ford/status/1397247693156765696

    "Fact check:
    His final term had been due to end in 2020, but a third exceptional term of office was agreed to provide stability to the organisation during the coronavirus crisis. In May 2021, the Trust announced that he would step down from his position in October this year."
    So not a victim of Cancel Culture after all? 🤔
    Not because he’s woke but because he wants to go to sleep.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,643
    Looks like the @Casino_Royale campaign against the National Trust has succeeded.

    Don’t mess with pissed off boomer-manques from the Hampshire-Surrey borders.

    I’d be shitting myself if I were vegetarian.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    The chairman of the National Trust has resigned. He was facing a vote of no confidence:

    https://twitter.com/RestoreTrustNT/status/1397229525843513348?s=20

    Really? Seems he was stepping down anyway after an unusual third term because pox.

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Ford/status/1397247693156765696

    "Fact check:
    His final term had been due to end in 2020, but a third exceptional term of office was agreed to provide stability to the organisation during the coronavirus crisis. In May 2021, the Trust announced that he would step down from his position in October this year."
    So not a victim of Cancel Culture after all? 🤔
    Yes, or rather no, apparently not:

    https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/our-chair-tim-parker
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,570
    Huklir said:

    Why is Dom reframing the notion of "herd immunity"?
    A mass vaccination campaign is precisely about creating herd immunity. The idea is to achieve so much coverage as to leave the virus no other option but to die out or mutate and become harmless. That is how smallpox died out, for example.

    There is presumably a model that connects % vaccine coverage with R, or more specifically with what the value of R would be if there were no vaccination.

    What % vaccine coverage is thought to be required in order to achieve herd immunity against SARSCoV2?
    Does someone here know? Presumably the figure varies on various assumptions regarding variants, but still, can somebody post some ballpark figures. 60%? 90%? 95%?

    Initial version 60% was talked about. Now we have more transmissible variants it will need to be higher if we want our old way of life back, but we are getting pretty close. The complications right now are mainly among the unvaccinated, both by choice (fools) and the young (not their fault). Remember that herd immunity does not mean no more Covid, it will still be there, but a general outbreak will be unlikely.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,643
    On lockdown, the only question the government should be asking itself is can we bring the June 21st freedom from restrictions forward?

    I’m including masks.
    I won’t be wearing one after June 21.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Cookie said:

    Omnium said:

    Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.

    @MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?

    Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.

    Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
    Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.

    Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,643
    No, the Lib Dems won’t win Amersham and Chesham.

    I wish they would! It might stop the government further concreting over SE England.

    But they won’t. Chesham - lower middle class - is perfect BoJo territory.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Huklir said:

    Why is Dom reframing the notion of "herd immunity"?
    A mass vaccination campaign is precisely about creating herd immunity. The idea is to achieve so much coverage as to leave the virus no other option but to die out or mutate and become harmless. That is how smallpox died out, for example.

    There is presumably a model that connects % vaccine coverage with R, or more specifically with what the value of R would be if there were no vaccination.

    What % vaccine coverage is thought to be required in order to achieve herd immunity against SARSCoV2?
    Does someone here know? Presumably the figure varies on various assumptions regarding variants, but still, can somebody post some ballpark figures. 60%? 90%? 95%?

    "Why is Dom reframing the notion of "herd immunity"?"

    You must remember that the intergalactic genius known as Dom is always four moves ahead of the rest of us on the 4-D chess board.

    PS. Welcome aboard.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,343
    IanB2 said:

    kjh said:

    IanB2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    We all don't know lots of things. The electoral register and marked register are made available to political parties. It isn't a secret, but I grant you that unless you are involved you may not know this.

    Every election we always get outcry that your vote can be determined by the number allocated to the ballot paper. This is in fact true. Your vote is not a secret in the sense that if your ballot paper is seen anytime after you have voted it can be determined that the paper belonged to you and therefore how you voted.

    The secrecy is maintained by the fact that your ballot paper can not easily be seen. Normally a judge has to order the opening of the ballot boxes after the count if there is an issue. During the count activist will be witnessing the papers being counted so in theory could work it out also, but in practice this is impossible as you only see a subset of votes and would have to memorize numbers and votes for each and every ballot paper you saw. When doing the verification part of the count this is often done upside down, much to the annoyance of the activists who are trying to do rough counts so as to determine where to put their checkers. So you only really get to see the ballot paper clearly for the main count.

    In the old days cameras weren't allowed to be used during the count. I don't know about now as everyone has one and I haven't been to a count in years.
    Cameras still aren’t supposed to be used.

    But you’re wrong on one point: verification is done paper face up, specifically to avoid anyone monitoring it seeing the ballot paper number.

    Despite voter bribery/intimidation having died a death pretty soon after the secret ballot was introduced, many of our electoral practices continue on the assumption that this is the principal threat to our democracy.
    I haven't been to a count for a very long time but when I did and I did an awful lot the verification used to be vote side up, then some started doing them with the vote facing the table. I remember because there was a lot of complaining about it by all the parties watching. We were going to see them anyway so what was the point, other than you could lose track of what ballot boxes they came out of, but again that shouldn't be an issue in terms of secrecy and it was useful in targeting where to put most of your activists and the progress if you knew which ballot box votes you were watching.

    Many decades ago we did use a polling agent when we knew another party (in fairness probably individuals not party) were attempting to vote using absentee voters. It was pathetic in the sense that they were going to win anyway and the number of votes that could be cast, unless you had an army of people willing to try it on was minimal. We used our canvas data to make the challenges. The first person challenged did a runner. The police weren't interested. That ended it I suspect because only one more challenge was made and that was someone who was going to be away, but didn't go in the end so was genuine.
    Ballot box verifications are done ballot paper face up.

    Postal vote verifications are done ballot paper face down.

    Those are the rules.
    I'm going back a long time. It happened. We complained, so did the Tories. We had a useless returning officer which might explain it (lots of stories)
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,510
    Fishing said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The terms of the debate here show that all that's needed is a covid variant that even partially evades the vaccines and we are back in lockdown for three months.

    Then another round of vaccines.

    Then another three months lockdown

    Once you decided to play the game, you became subject to the rules.

    In the US, covid restrictions have been dismantled in most states. In Denmark, pretty much all restrictions have been lifted, and even countries like France are unlocking.

    Why do you think the political pressures are so different in the UK?
    Because the government deliberately went out to terrify people at the start of the pandemic over a disease with a 0.3% mortality rate. And it succeeded so well that opinion polls showed that Britons were the most terrified of the virus and most willing to support restrictions.
    Why do some denialists continue with bollocks claims on the IFR?
    We know it’s not 0.3%. There are countries where more than 0.3% of the population have died from it.
    I mean, 0.25% of the entire population of the North West have died from it. Unless you truly believe 83% of the entire population there have had it already (and had had it weeks ago, as the death rate’s been so low since), then it’s palpable bollocks with five seconds thought.

    And, of course, completely ignores the far far higher hospitalisation rate and the impact on hospital numbers.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,643

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    In the words of Scott McNealy: you have no privacy, get over it.

    If this information wasn't available from the electoral roll, Google and Apple would sell it to you (as they know where you are at any time). And yes, I know you don't have a smartphone, and you've surgically disconnected any smart features from your car. But even the most privacy obsessed person is going to leave a digital trail. And yes, that means someone can work out who voted and who didn't.
    Why should we accept we have no privacy?
    Dunno. It seems to have gone out of fashion.
    I’m about the only person I know who seems to care about it, and even I don’t do pretty basic things like avoid smartphones.

    (But I’m not on Facebook or Instagram).
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 105,481
    Hooray,

    England will face New Zealand in front of around 17,000 fans for the Second Test at Edgbaston next month as it is set to be included in the Government’s second round of trials for the return of crowds.

    The First Test at Lord’s, which starts a week tomorrow, will be played in line with current Government regulations - meaning a capacity of around 25 per cent (or 7,000 people).

    But the match the following week in Birmingham, which begins on Thursday, June 10, is on course to be selected as part of the second round of trials. The Government is expected to confirm which events will form part of phase two in the next few days.

    It is understood there will be approximately 17,000 people allowed into the venue, which would represent around 70 per cent of capacity.


    https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/cricket/england-new-zealand-crowd-edgbaston-test-b937192.html
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,016

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    In the words of Scott McNealy: you have no privacy, get over it.

    If this information wasn't available from the electoral roll, Google and Apple would sell it to you (as they know where you are at any time). And yes, I know you don't have a smartphone, and you've surgically disconnected any smart features from your car. But even the most privacy obsessed person is going to leave a digital trail. And yes, that means someone can work out who voted and who didn't.
    Why should we accept we have no privacy?
    Dunno. It seems to have gone out of fashion.
    I’m about the only person I know who seems to care about it, and even I don’t do pretty basic things like avoid smartphones.

    (But I’m not on Facebook or Instagram).
    There's at least two of us.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,327
    Huklir said:

    Why is Dom reframing the notion of "herd immunity"?
    A mass vaccination campaign is precisely about creating herd immunity. The idea is to achieve so much coverage as to leave the virus no other option but to die out or mutate and become harmless. That is how smallpox died out, for example.

    There is presumably a model that connects % vaccine coverage with R, or more specifically with what the value of R would be if there were no vaccination.

    What % vaccine coverage is thought to be required in order to achieve herd immunity against SARSCoV2?
    Does someone here know? Presumably the figure varies on various assumptions regarding variants, but still, can somebody post some ballpark figures. 60%? 90%? 95%?

    The formula is 1-1/R0, where R naught is the R for a naive and unprotected population (i.e. where all members of the population are susceptible to infection)

    So if R0= 5, then herd immunity is 80% of the total population (not adult). If it is 3.6, as in Kent variant, then 72-73%
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,234
    Fishing said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The terms of the debate here show that all that's needed is a covid variant that even partially evades the vaccines and we are back in lockdown for three months.

    Then another round of vaccines.

    Then another three months lockdown

    Once you decided to play the game, you became subject to the rules.

    In the US, covid restrictions have been dismantled in most states. In Denmark, pretty much all restrictions have been lifted, and even countries like France are unlocking.

    Why do you think the political pressures are so different in the UK?
    Because the government deliberately went out to terrify people at the start of the pandemic over a disease with a 0.3% mortality rate. And it succeeded so well that opinion polls showed that Britons were the most terrified of the virus and most willing to support restrictions.
    Why are you using such a bogus figure as 0.3% for the mortality rate?

    We know it is higher than that, because we can see that just over 0.3% of Hungary's population has died of the thing. So why discredit yourself by using such a ridiculous figure, and how did you arrive at it when there are much better estimates available?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    Government withdrawing travel advice for the 8 areas.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,749
    Andy_JS said:

    Government withdrawing travel advice for the 8 areas.

    That was quick.

    But it only makes them look even more shambolic.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,822
    Bit weird. Russia perhaps?

    French influencers say a London-based PR agency is offering money on behalf of an anonymous client to spread false information about COVID-19 vaccines https://t.co/V8l6rmdx4a
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,154
    ydoethur said:

    Huklir said:

    Why is Dom reframing the notion of "herd immunity"?
    A mass vaccination campaign is precisely about creating herd immunity. The idea is to achieve so much coverage as to leave the virus no other option but to die out or mutate and become harmless. That is how smallpox died out, for example.

    There is presumably a model that connects % vaccine coverage with R, or more specifically with what the value of R would be if there were no vaccination.

    What % vaccine coverage is thought to be required in order to achieve herd immunity against SARSCoV2?
    Does someone here know? Presumably the figure varies on various assumptions regarding variants, but still, can somebody post some ballpark figures. 60%? 90%? 95%?

    Welcome.

    Malta is claiming success at 70%:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/05/25/malta-claims-herd-immunity-from-covid-19-with-70-of-its-adults-partially-vaccinated/?sh=329817347573

    And we can’t be far off that now.
    First para is wrong I think.

    Malta are claiming all people, not just adults.

    It's because the Health System is closely modelled on the UK :smile:
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,344
    I just caught a glimpse of a ridiculous interview on Sky news with a "social psychologist" who was warning that we could be heading for a return to the "dark days of January" because the government isn't looking at the data. He make several unfounded claims about vaccine escape.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.

    I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.

    Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box.
    Voter: What's your mandate?
    Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet.
    Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power?
    Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created]
    Voter: Shocking
    Me: Time for a change
    Voter - yes definitely.

    Voter #2 [on the doorstep]
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change
    Voter: yes definitely

    Voter #3 [same thing]

    Voter #4
    Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change
    Voter: Don't give me that rubbish.
    Me: Are you going to vote?
    Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question.
    Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said.
    Voter: Impertinent.
    I avoided giving the V sign.

    Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
    By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.

    66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.

    Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
    I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
    It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
    A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.

    Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
    The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
    Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
    Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?

    Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
    If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
    I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
    In the words of Scott McNealy: you have no privacy, get over it.

    If this information wasn't available from the electoral roll, Google and Apple would sell it to you (as they know where you are at any time). And yes, I know you don't have a smartphone, and you've surgically disconnected any smart features from your car. But even the most privacy obsessed person is going to leave a digital trail. And yes, that means someone can work out who voted and who didn't.
    Why should we accept we have no privacy?
    Dunno. It seems to have gone out of fashion.
    I’m about the only person I know who seems to care about it, and even I don’t do pretty basic things like avoid smartphones.

    (But I’m not on Facebook or Instagram).
    There's at least two of us.
    Three
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,142
    ydoethur said:

    Huklir said:

    Why is Dom reframing the notion of "herd immunity"?
    A mass vaccination campaign is precisely about creating herd immunity. The idea is to achieve so much coverage as to leave the virus no other option but to die out or mutate and become harmless. That is how smallpox died out, for example.

    There is presumably a model that connects % vaccine coverage with R, or more specifically with what the value of R would be if there were no vaccination.

    What % vaccine coverage is thought to be required in order to achieve herd immunity against SARSCoV2?
    Does someone here know? Presumably the figure varies on various assumptions regarding variants, but still, can somebody post some ballpark figures. 60%? 90%? 95%?

    Welcome.

    Malta is claiming success at 70%:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/05/25/malta-claims-herd-immunity-from-covid-19-with-70-of-its-adults-partially-vaccinated/?sh=329817347573

    And we can’t be far off that now.
    I'm fairly sure we've passed that already.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,510
    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    Huklir said:

    Why is Dom reframing the notion of "herd immunity"?
    A mass vaccination campaign is precisely about creating herd immunity. The idea is to achieve so much coverage as to leave the virus no other option but to die out or mutate and become harmless. That is how smallpox died out, for example.

    There is presumably a model that connects % vaccine coverage with R, or more specifically with what the value of R would be if there were no vaccination.

    What % vaccine coverage is thought to be required in order to achieve herd immunity against SARSCoV2?
    Does someone here know? Presumably the figure varies on various assumptions regarding variants, but still, can somebody post some ballpark figures. 60%? 90%? 95%?

    Welcome.

    Malta is claiming success at 70%:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/05/25/malta-claims-herd-immunity-from-covid-19-with-70-of-its-adults-partially-vaccinated/?sh=329817347573

    And we can’t be far off that now.
    First para is wrong I think.

    Malta are claiming all people, not just adults.

    It's because the Health System is closely modelled on the UK :smile:
    We need to get to 47 million to have 70% partially vaccinated (currently at just over 38 million).
    Assuming 30% of the population have had covid and that this 30% is evenly distributed between vaxed and unvaxed, that would make 80% immunity and give us herd immunity if R is less than or equal to 5.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,327
    TimT said:

    Huklir said:

    Why is Dom reframing the notion of "herd immunity"?
    A mass vaccination campaign is precisely about creating herd immunity. The idea is to achieve so much coverage as to leave the virus no other option but to die out or mutate and become harmless. That is how smallpox died out, for example.

    There is presumably a model that connects % vaccine coverage with R, or more specifically with what the value of R would be if there were no vaccination.

    What % vaccine coverage is thought to be required in order to achieve herd immunity against SARSCoV2?
    Does someone here know? Presumably the figure varies on various assumptions regarding variants, but still, can somebody post some ballpark figures. 60%? 90%? 95%?

    The formula is 1-1/R0, where R naught is the R for a naive and unprotected population (i.e. where all members of the population are susceptible to infection)

    So if R0= 5, then herd immunity is 80% of the total population (not adult). If it is 3.6, as in Kent variant, then 72-73%
    If we get 95% of all adults (79% of the population) vaccinated with two shots providing 90% protection, that gets us to 67.5% of the total population protected. With about ⅓ of the 16.8 million unvaccinated kids and adults probably having naturally acquired immunity through exposure, that would almost certainly IMO take us to herd immunity with the current variants.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,050

    Cookie said:

    Omnium said:

    Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.

    @MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?

    Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.

    Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
    Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.

    Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
    That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.

    Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    I just caught a glimpse of a ridiculous interview on Sky news with a "social psychologist" who was warning that we could be heading for a return to the "dark days of January" because the government isn't looking at the data. He make several unfounded claims about vaccine escape.

    I swear Andrew Neil has an agent inside Sky trying to make sure it loses all credibility and that it is unwatchable.

    Far too much unmitigated crap. I wonder if this "social psychologist" is "Independent SAGE" but they neglected to mention it, that's been very common recently.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,866
    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,142
    Huklir said:

    Why is Dom reframing the notion of "herd immunity"?
    A mass vaccination campaign is precisely about creating herd immunity. The idea is to achieve so much coverage as to leave the virus no other option but to die out or mutate and become harmless. That is how smallpox died out, for example.

    There is presumably a model that connects % vaccine coverage with R, or more specifically with what the value of R would be if there were no vaccination.

    What % vaccine coverage is thought to be required in order to achieve herd immunity against SARSCoV2?
    Does someone here know? Presumably the figure varies on various assumptions regarding variants, but still, can somebody post some ballpark figures. 60%? 90%? 95%?

    Welcome, Huklir!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,649

    On lockdown, the only question the government should be asking itself is can we bring the June 21st freedom from restrictions forward?

    I’m including masks.
    I won’t be wearing one after June 21.

    Hear, hear. No masks, no social distancing and all businesses able to open with no restrictions.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 8,685
    ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Government withdrawing travel advice for the 8 areas.

    That was quick.

    But it only makes them look even more shambolic.
    So business as usual then.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,749

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    Surely you drink Scotch, rather than read it?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,866
    Carnyx said:

    The chairman of the National Trust has resigned. He was facing a vote of no confidence:

    https://twitter.com/RestoreTrustNT/status/1397229525843513348?s=20

    Really? Seems he was stepping down anyway after an unusual third term because pox.

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Ford/status/1397247693156765696

    "Fact check:
    His final term had been due to end in 2020, but a third exceptional term of office was agreed to provide stability to the organisation during the coronavirus crisis. In May 2021, the Trust announced that he would step down from his position in October this year."
    Shame that Neil Oliver has been poached by Gammon Broadcasting, that would be an exciting appointment.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,354

    I just caught a glimpse of a ridiculous interview on Sky news with a "social psychologist" who was warning that we could be heading for a return to the "dark days of January" because the government isn't looking at the data. He make several unfounded claims about vaccine escape.

    I watched that and again a member of independent sage who has an agenda, is not identified, and is a zero covid devotee

    Time they were put back in their box
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Cookie said:

    Omnium said:

    Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.

    @MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?

    Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.

    Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
    Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.

    Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
    That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.

    Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
    Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.

    Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,649

    I just caught a glimpse of a ridiculous interview on Sky news with a "social psychologist" who was warning that we could be heading for a return to the "dark days of January" because the government isn't looking at the data. He make several unfounded claims about vaccine escape.

    The issue is that no one calls them out on it live. The idiots on Sky just let them say it because they're all know nothing English graduates who don't understand the first thing about scientific method or data.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?


    I think they all get subsidiary titles in the other three parts of the UK when they get granted their "main" title. Charles is Duke of Rothesay for viewers in Scotland IIRC.
This discussion has been closed.